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

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

From: mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:27:12 -0600
Message-Id: <v01540b19b4be2e908771@[128.104.23.196]>
To: <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: pjenkins@us.ibm.com, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
hi Rich

I'm not suggesting we don't use DOM, and I'm not suggesting
we create yet other standard.  I'm suggesting that presentation
*style* can make a huge difference in whether or not someone
"buys-in" to an idea.

regards

mark

At 12:33 PM 2/2/00, <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>I would like to be much stronger with how the DOM is required for
>accessibility. In terms of the chrome, I believe that an User Agent can
>make their application accessible by using the native chrome accessibility
>support (MSAA/Java). For the actual Document representation I believe the
>the application writer should be required to implement the DOM. Here is
>why:
>
>- It is a W3C standard and the W3C is using this as a conduit for providing
>access to the document.
>- From an AT perspective, standards are needed. Otherwise you end up with
>tons of proprietary standards that can be proliferated on a per application
>basis.
>
>The problem with introducing yet another non-standard interface is that the
>user will have to wait until the assistive technology is capable and
>willing to support the interface. It also makes writing any UA techniques
>document near impossible.
>
>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 02/02/2000 11:05:00 AM
>
>To:   Phill Jenkins/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
>cc:
>Subject:  Re: Tentative meeting on the DOM with AT vendors for the User
>      Agent Guidelines
>
>
>
>
>hi Phil
>
>At 2:56 PM 2/1/00, pjenkins@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>>We need to distinguish between "browser company" and "AT company".
>
>when you say "we", I'm not sure who you are referring to.  I think
>you mean the UA group, and if correct, I agree that the UA guidelines/group
>needs
>to keep in mind the differing requirements of a UA  versus a AT developer.
>
>>I feel
>>the "browser company" meets its part of the accessibility contract when it
>>provides information to the AT via the DOM.
>
>I would also agree with this, but I wouldn't say that is the "only" way
>a UA might be able to meet this requirement.  The UA should expose
>all of its content, and using DOM would seem a "logical" method to do
>so.
>
>
>>If the AT doesn't utilize the
>>DOM, and that is the only [or best] method that "browser" provides, it is
>>still the AT's responsibility to provide the work around or implement the
>>DOM.
>
>Again, I would agree, the AT (if they want to stay in business) will have
>to provide access to the information in the UA.  "If" using DOM is found
>to be the best method to do so, and the AT doesn't use DOM, then they may
>or may not meet their responsibility. The UA group should provide examples,
>source code, etc., to encourage DOM use.   But that is a decision best left
>to
>the AT developer, not the UA group.
>
>
>>We can't go forward with accessible technology by always shackling
>>ourselves with legacy solutions.  The solution needs to be technically
>>accessible.  We can't continue to burden developers and authors with
>>redundant solutions either.  Redundant solutions cost TWICE as much.  Side
>>issues, such as whether some or when all AT's support it and whether the
>>user has the time/money/space/patience to upgrade both the browser and the
>>AT, should also be separated.
>
>
>I'm not suggesting any of this...  I'm simply cautioning the UA group that
>"how" we present using DOM or any other technology to the AT community
>is just as important as the technology itself.
>
>mark
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2000 14:24:21 GMT

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