W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: Tenative meeting on the DOM with AT vendors for the User Agent Guidelines

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 15:01:05 -0500 (EST)
To: schwer@us.ibm.com
cc: thatch@us.ibm.com, Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>, Peter Korn <peter.korn@sun.com>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0001311457170.14740-100000@tux.w3.org>
Rich,

while I agree with you that an Off Screen Model is often not the best way to
engineer a product, particularly for cross-platform protability, I don't
think there is an intrinsic reason why it is harmful. If a developer was
working only on a single platform (and many do) and found that using an OSM
was more effective than tying to get through a bizarre API or an undocumented
one, then it may be a better solution.

I think a DOM which includes access to the chrome is a great benefit to
accessibility, and using itis a very good way to meet the needs of
users. However I am not sure that it is always a requirement. In favour of
requiring this approach is that it is a single standard, and is compatible
with the DOM used to provide access to a document.

Charles McCN

On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 schwer@us.ibm.com wrote:

  
  
  
  Regarding the OSM. I have these concerns:
  
     Prone to errors
     Very difficult to create from scratch
     Each platform has an entirely different graphics subsystem requiring an
     incredible amount of rework
     There is no OSM on pervasive devices or UNIX systems
  
  We absolutely need the DOM to be able to support the chrome. This is not
  just for GUI interfaces but it is also for audio browser interfaces that
  need to access information beyond the document such as history lists, etc.
  In fact, it was amazing how many of the other companies present at the DOM
  3 working group meeting had a need for an application architecture based on
  DOM.
  
  This is not to say that IE would not be accessible because it uses MSAA for
  the chrome. An accessible application framework is absolutely critical to
  address the needs that I am referring to.
  
  The fact is the construction of an OSM requires reverse on engineering on
  every new platform. The cost of creating accessibility for each new
  platfrom based on the DOM is expensive. New accessible infrastructures like
  the DOM, Java Accessibility, and MSAA target accessible objects and not an
  OSM because:
  
     They are more accurate
     They are less costly to implement
     They create an engineered conduit through which to make applications
     accessible
  
  I am very proud of our work on the OSM too.  However, I am not comfortable
  with its limitations and the future accessible web we are all trying to
  create it does not fit. I working cross-platform accessible application
  model for the web is needed. This model will need to support the chrome.
  
  Rich
  
  Rich Schwerdtfeger
  Lead Architect, IBM Special Needs Systems
  EMail/web: schwer@us.ibm.com http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/rich.htm
  
  "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
  I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.",
  Frost
  
  
  thatch@us.ibm.com on 01/29/2000 06:42:43 PM
  
  To:   Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
  cc:   Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, mark novak
        <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>, Peter Korn <peter.korn@sun.com>,
        w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
  Subject:  Re: Tenative meeting on the DOM with AT vendors for the User
             Agent Guidelines
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Rich,
  
  In speaking of developing DOM 3 to include agent chrome, you say that
  the only alternative is:  "going back down the antiquated OSM route to
  get the needed information."  I would hardly call Off-Screen Model
  technology "antiquated."  I suspect that having put so much effort into
  developing the most stable and robust OSM in the business, you didn't
  remember that Screen Reader/2 used OS/2 messages and queries
  to get at chrome. So it is today that most screen readers depend
  on Windows messages and queries, and those available through from a
  common interface, namely MSAA, to access Chrome. I see no reason
  for including Chrome  in the DOM. The age of OSM technology, about
  13 years, has nothing to do with it.
  
  Jim Thatcher
  IBM Accessibility Center
  www.ibm.com/sns
  HPR Quick Help: http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/quickreplace.html
  (512)838-0432
  
  
  schwer@us.ibm.com on 01/28/2000 03:00:04 PM
  
  To:   Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
  cc:   mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>, Peter Korn
        <peter.korn@sun.com>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
  Subject:  Re: Tenative meeting on the DOM with AT vendors for the User
         Agent Guidelines
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  That's fine.
  
  I think you should know that I met with the DOM working group in
  California. We (PF group) plan on extending the DOM further for
  accessibility in DOM 3. Furthermore, I have started the wheels rolling on
  an editorial team in the DOM working group to address the feasibility of
  extending the DOM to include the "chrome." There were a number of DOM WG
  members who were very interested in this prospect for a number reasons:
  audio browsers pervasive devices, etc.
  
  I don't understand why you feel it is necessary to solicit support given
  that there is no other mechanism other than going back down the antiquated
  OSM route to get the needed information.
  
  Rich
  
  Rich Schwerdtfeger
  Lead Architect, IBM Special Needs Systems
  EMail/web: schwer@us.ibm.com http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/rich.htm
  
  "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
  I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.",
  Frost
  
  
  Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> on 01/27/2000 04:52:46 PM
  
  To:   mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>, Richard
        Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Peter Korn <peter.korn@sun.com>
  cc:   w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
  Subject:  Tenative meeting on the DOM with AT vendors for the User Agent
        Guidelines
  
  
  
  
  Peter, Mark and Rich,
  The W3C WAI User Agent guidelines are going to be in Candidate
  Recommendation within a day or two.  Part of the goal of our candidate
  recommendation period is to discuss the use of the DOM with AT vendors for
  assistive technologies to provide  alternative access to WWW content.  We
  hope to gain their support in using the DOM as the primary way to provide
  an exchange of WWW content between user agents and assistive technologies.
  We have tenatively scheduled this meeting for 18 Feburary at 2:00 EST.  I
  would like to invite all of you to participate in this teleconference and
  was wondering about your availability and interest in attending at the
  tenative date and time.
  
  Thank you,
  Jon
  
  Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
  Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
  Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
  Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
  College of Applied Life Studies
  University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
  1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820
  
  Voice: (217) 244-5870
  Fax: (217) 333-0248
  
  E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
  
  WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
  WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

--
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia 
Received on Monday, 31 January 2000 15:07:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:51 GMT