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: <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 13:11:16 -0600
To: menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu (mark novak)
cc: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256878.0069F82A.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com>



Mark,

While the application model may not reside in the DOM it is the best place
to start with the issue given that things like an event model are already
defined here. It would also be good for you and others to look at what is
being proposed for DOM 3 and what is in DOM 2, ... aside from
accessibility. There are alot of UI related components in here that are
extensions to the Core DOM but which are handled by the DOM working group.
The DOM is being extended to support UIs. My guess is the DOM will end up
being a kind of layered model where you peel back parts of the onion for
levels of applicability.

In any case, the job of this DOM WG editorial team will be to address the
issues you are raising. As for referring to the DOM or PF working group
stepping back to look at the issue that is what the editorial team is for.
Furthermore, this is much more than just an accessibility issue and should
not be confined to a PF work item. This will effect anyone who wishes to
make pervasive solutions accessible by traditionally considered
non-disabled users as well. I am rather excited about the opportunity to
get rid of the differentiation factor.

I guess my point is that we can sit back and fret about it or solve the
problem, much the same we all did with Java in Palo Alto 3-4 years ago.

I vote for solving the problem. The biggest cat out of the bag is not the
events in DOM 2 but the fact that all these pervasive devices and some
important cross-platform user agents are inaccessible.

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


menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu (mark novak) on 02/01/2000 12:31:32 PM

To:   Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
cc:   w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
Subject:  Re: Tenative meeting on the DOM with AT vendors for the User
      Agent      Guidelines




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 14:17:43 GMT

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