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: mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 12:31:32 -0600
Message-Id: <v01540b08b4bcb6b5ffd6@[128.104.23.196]>
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
hi Jon

i'd be happy to participate in this call.  thanks for asking.

however, i'm concerned about the follow up discussion this request
has generated in DOM vs OSM vs API, etc.

i'd advocate that DOM is just another tool/method, and if company A
chooses to use DOM, or an  OSM, or some other idea, that is company A's
decision.  i don't support the concept that *all* companies have to
use DOM .  I understand the advantages and dis-advantages, just concerned
about any "tone" we present to the AT community.

i'm also concerned about how much push there is to add the "chrome" to
DOM.   Rich said it best, when he replied yesterday regarding
the DOM working group meeting he attended last week:

<quote>
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.
</unquote>

Please don't mis-interpret me.  I understand the need, and I would also like
to see access to the chrome.  I just don't believe it belongs *inside* the DOM.
Indeed, I wonder how many of these "application architectures" are web based
and thus,  I wish the DOM working group, and PF would step back and look at
all the possible web based applications of DOM, and what would happen if DOM
followed the data model of the MVC (model, view, controller paradigm)
rather than be extended endlessly to handle each and every new
need/requirement.    Perhaps I'm hung up on semantics here, and maybe
the DOM working group's idea about extending the DOM to include
the chrome is really creating the "view and controller".  If so, then
my conerns are not as serious.

However, I don't understand things to be that way, and as they say, "I
think the cat
got out of the bag", when DOM2 included Events.   If DOM3 is really
going to address accessibility,  and work in the future, with all these
applications and devices, which we have yet to develop, now is the time to
look at these
things.

Regards

Mark



also, while i support most of what the UA group has said about
supporting DOM, i am not in favor of adding the chrome (UI) to DOM.  In my
opinion, DOM should remain the "clean" data model of the MVC
(model, view, controller paradigm).    If the DOM is "extended" to
somehow include the chrome, then the "method of this extension"
is my concern.

mark

>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
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2000 13:29:21 GMT

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