- From: mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:12:44 -0600
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
hi rich, charles, and all At 12:46 AM 2/17/00, schwer@us.ibm.com wrote: >>And to the specifics, I have been proposing a suitable interim solution >for >>about a year, that has been very little changed (selection dropped out), >and >>asking (explicitly, and I thought fairly unambiguously) that DOM2 remove >the >>mouse events completely (except mousemove) for at least six months. > >I agree with this. i don't understand, if we went to a MVC, why we'd need "mousemove" inside the DOM, but that can be a topic for the discussion of the DOM 2 to DOM 3 transition via the PF group at a later date. >So you are suggesting dropping all but mousemove for 6 months. Anything >else? > >Would you agree to have the UA group specify DOM 2 without mouse events as >a P2? > >I suspect Mark has more concerns than this but possibly not. indeed I do, and as for what I'd suggest for the UA Guidelines re:DOM, was I think best phrased in Ian's discussion with Philippe yesterday: <quote> Philippe feels that user agents should be required to conform to DOM Level 2 core and Level two HTML. DOM Level 2 core is the same as DOM Level 1 core, but adds XML namespaces. DOM Level 2 HTML is the same as DOM Level 1 HTML. Conformance to the other DOM Level 2 modules is optional according to the DOM 2 spec. His point is this: requiring DOM Level 2 core/HTML conformance is not much more than DOM Level 1 conformance and not including namespace support would be a mistake. </quote> this prevents the UA Guidelines from req. conformance to the other DOM 2 modules, like the events module which many of us have issues with, that are probably not going to clear up until DOM 3. this doesn't prevent the UA Tech DOC., from showing examples and references to other bits and pieces of DOM 2 which may also be useful for AT developers. regards mark >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 > > >Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> on 02/16/2000 02:00:52 PM > >To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS >cc: WAI Protocols & Formats WG <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org> >Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: User Agent Issue 190: > > > > >now only on PF list: > >I agree that punting back to DOM 1 is a bad approach (since the set there >is >even worse than DOM2). I am not in favour of developers having to wait for >W3C to get its act together either, but I am very much not in favour of W3C >producing rubbish just to meet a timeline, since my experience has been >that >the mistakes rushed through become very costly indeed to undo. > >Where we have a model of what we think should be done and what we think >shouldn't be done then I think it is our responsibility to promote that >model, whether it involves working on a new specification, suggesting how >to >use an existing one, or finding a stop-gap method that will provide the >least >painful transition path to what we expect to come out in the future. As a >group and as an individual we have to make decisions on how we think this >should be done, and to a certain extent guesses about the future. > >And to the specifics, I have been proposing a suitable interim solution for >about a year, that has been very little changed (selection dropped out), >and >asking (explicitly, and I thought fairly unambiguously) that DOM2 remove >the >mouse events completely (except mousemove) for at least six months. > >Charles McCN > >On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 schwer@us.ibm.com wrote: > > > > > Charles, I understand that you are concerned about Mouse Events, but they > are in DOM 1 event though they don't specify how to deliver them. Which, > leaves it up to the UA developer to whip up whatever feels comfortable. > Meanwhile, we wait another year for all the other AT features in DOM 2 to > shop up in DOM 3 and then another 6 months to year to see them show up in >a > product. > > Sorry to be blunt, but as an AT developer I am not in favor of waiting > another year and half for the W3C to get its act together. > > I don't like mouse events either. Why don't we specify DOM 2 without the > mouse events for starters? Can we say in the UA guidelines to use DOM 2 >but > that device dependent events are not endorsed by the UA group? > > Lets stop saying what we don't like and come up with a suitable interim > solution. Punting and going back to DOM1 is not the solution. > > 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 > > > Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> on 02/15/2000 09:11:16 PM > > To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS > cc: User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, WAI > Protocols & Formats WG <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org> > Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: User Agent Issue 190: > > > > > I agree with Mark - there is no need for the Mouse events in DOM2. (with > the > possible exception of mousemove.) There is a clear proposal for what to >do > to > match the legacy event triggers in HTML 4 with the new DOM events. If we > say > to developers "use that approach in DOM2" then we are encouraging them to > get > it right. If we say "go for it - put in the activate methods but don't > expect > anyone else to take them seriously either" then we are encouraging them >to > propogate things that do not work, and we then have to explain to them >how > to > fix two lots of problems (as well as why there isn't a key events set but > why > keyboard access is still critical). > > Changing the names is neither here nor there. And I don't think anyone >has > expressed dissatisfaction with the propogation or the mutation events > (other > than the problems raised by Gregory, which properly belong in UA and >WCAG, > about magically submitting things). Having a device-dependent set of > prefabricated events in the DOM is just a little like giving matches to > children with a history of lighting fires, along with the lecture on why > not > to do it. Or like putting a big warning that Smoking Kills You on every > cigarette packet - for a tobacco company. > > Charles McCN > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 schwer@us.ibm.com wrote: > > >am I understanding you correctly in that the fact that there isn't any > >difference with HTML, that makes DOM2 events OK? DOM2 device > dependencies > >are not OK in my mind. the i18n group made the right choice to pull > >the keyboard events and I wish they'd removed the mouse events > >from DOM 2. > > No. What I am saying is that the device dependecy exists in the HTML >DOM. > For example, HTML DOM contains mouse events. We all agree that device > dependency is bad. What DOM2 does give you is a standard event model >for > developers to write to even though the event names may change. Changing > event names is less of an impact than writing the entire event model >from > scratch and I would like to get people writing from a standard event > model > for: > > - event propagation > - document mutation (the mutation events are good) > > The problem is that if we say to developers "use DOM 1" they will be > using > HTML DOM 1 plus the device depencent events anyways because they have >to > (They still have to support things like JavaScript). What they will not > be > doing is supporting standardized mutation events and DOM event > propagation > in DOM 2. These elements of DOM 2 are not likely to change in DOM 3 >even > with our changes for device independence. > > DOM 2 will also provide for: > > - DOM CSS and DOM Style Sheets which can help assistive technologies >such > as low vision and reading disorders > - Iterators which will reduce increase performance when AT's need to > access > elements in the DOM > > 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 02/15/2000 02:36:35 PM > > To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS > cc: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" > <unagi69@concentric.net>, Charles McCathieNevile ><charles@w3.org>, > User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, WAI > Protocols & Formats WG <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org> > Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: User Agent Issue 190: Reduce the scope of 5.1 >to > say "write access only for that which you can do > through > the UI." > > > > > hi rich > > At 12:47 PM 2/15/00, <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote: > >Mark, > > > >There are a number of features in DOM 2 that make life easier for ATs. > One > >is iterators and a core event model which does provide standard rules > for > >event propagation. DOM 1 is very weak. While I appreciate some of your > >conerns regarding the device dependencies in DOM 2 this is not any > >different from the HTML events provided for in HTML DOM 1. > > am I understanding you correctly in that the fact that there isn't any > difference with HTML, that makes DOM2 events OK? DOM2 device > dependencies > are not OK in my mind. the i18n group made the right choice to pull > the keyboard events and I wish they'd removed the mouse events > from DOM 2. > > > >DOM 2 also > >provides for mutation events which tell the AT when the DOM data >changes > >which helps with caching. DOM 1 is totally dead in this area. AT's > survive > >out of the kindness of Microsoft's heart in that they provide these > types > >of events even though the are not in core DOM 1. > > I'm assuming DOM 3 will provide somekind of feedback here as well. > Mutation > events in this case, are nothing more than the data model informing the > view/controller of changes. While MS may have done this via the > "kindness of Microsoft's heart" as you say, it doesn't hurt that >mutation > events > like "download begin, download complete, etc." exist for the ability of > scripting, DHTML and COM/CORBA/XPCOM to take advantage of, especially > for an interface built on the fly. > > I still maintain that DOM 2 is not something the UA group should push > too strongly, and I'm hopefull that DOM 3 will correct some of these > problems, as well as not be to far off. > > mark > > > > > >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 02/15/2000 10:37:18 AM > > > >To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS > >cc: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" > > <unagi69@concentric.net>, Charles McCathieNevile ><charles@w3.org>, > > User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, WAI > > Protocols & Formats WG <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org> > >Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: User Agent Issue 190: Reduce the scope of 5.1 >to > > say "write access only for that which you can do >through > > the UI." > > > > > > > > > >hi all > > > >At 9:53 AM 2/14/00, <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote: > >>This is why we were pushing the DOM2 event model as P2. > > > >in my opinion, the UA group should leave the guildlines as > >they are, referring only to DOM or DOM 1, as it may be. Then > >when the later releases of DOM are completed, the Tech DOC > >can refer to them, as it undoubtedly will. > > > >to refer to the current piece-meal event model in DOM 2 > >is not only a bad idea, it is misleading to developers since > >the model isn't complete. if makes no sense to me to > >rally support in the AT community for a spec that is as > >poor as DOM 2 event model currently stands. > > > > > >>It is unrealistic to expect the DOM WG to scrap their entire event > model > >>for accessibility. We should be able to improve upon it in terms of > device > >>independence. Having people start developing to the DOM 2 event model > will > >>not require them to rewrite the whole thing. > > > >No one on this list, as I've read, has suggested any such thing. The > >i18n group put a serious issue to the DOM group, much as the PF > >group did, and the event model that remained in DOM 2 is not very > >robust. > > > >If the event model were removed from DOM, as I've suggested, then > >having people follow the incomplete DOM 2 model may require > >rewrites. I'm hoping that those decisions are still being considered > >and thus why the UA should not act on DOM 2/3 at this time. > > > >>I do appreciate your concerns. > > > >thanks, but continuing to push DOM 2/3 with the UA is not helping, in >my > >opinion. > > > >mark > > > > > >>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 02/11/2000 08:49:49 AM > >> > >>To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS > >>cc: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" > >> <unagi69@concentric.net>, Charles McCathieNevile > <charles@w3.org>, > >> User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, WAI > >> Protocols & Formats WG <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org> > >>Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: User Agent Issue 190: Reduce the scope of 5.1 > to > >> say "write access only for that which you can do >through > >the > >> UI." > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>hi > >> > >>At 5:26 AM 2/11/00, <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote: > >>>The DOM event model is an ongoing discussion in the WAI/PF. We are > going > >>to > >>>submit requirements to the DOM working group regarding the event >model > >for > >>>DOM 3 in March. > >> > >> > >>can somone point me to where this *discussion* is taking place within > >>WAI/PF??? I would very much like to be apart of this... > >> > >>who are "we" when you say "We are going to submit requirements to the > DOM > >>working group" > >> > >> > >>>The reason I put it at P2 was because DOM 2 is not out yet. I also > share > >>>some device independence issues regarding the DOM 2 event model. > >>> > >>>If some developers could start adopting the DOM 2 event model, it > should > >>>reduce the time it would take to get the desired DOM 3 event model > >>>implemented and also ATs would have something to go from. > >> > >>at present, I'd encourage developers to avoid the event model of DOM >2, > >>assuming of course something more useable and robust appears for DOM >3, > >>which > >>would probably save the developers both development cost and grief! > >> > >> > >> > >>>We ought to be pushing for P1 with DOM 3 in the UA assuming the > correct > >>>changes are made between the DOM and PF working groups. > >> > >>it is unrealistic to push any priority over a document or spec. that > isn't > >>even yet written in my opinion. > >> > >>mark > >> > >> > >>>menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu (mark novak) on 02/10/2000 10:15:30 AM > >>> > >>>To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Gregory J. >Rosmaita" > >>> <unagi69@concentric.net>, Richard > Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, > >>> Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> > >>>cc: User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, WAI > >>> Protocols & Formats WG <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org> > >>>Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: User Agent Issue 190: Reduce the scope of >5.1 > to > >>> say "write access only for that which you can do through >the > >UI." > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>hi Jon and all > >>> > >>>I agree that all elements ought to understand and implement > >>>the appropriate event model, so for the UA, I don't see my > >>>next comment changing the UA process at the moment. > >>> > >>>However, I'm not in favor of making this a priority 1, since I'm not > >>>a fan of the event model within DOM 2. This is an on-going > >>>(I hope ) discussion on the PF/DOM working group lists. > >>> > >>>After the events/event model are understood, this checkpoint > >>>may need re-visiting. > >>> > >>>mark > >>> > >>>At 8:55 AM 2/10/00, Jon Gunderson wrote: > >>>>It seems there is a consensus to merge 5.3 and 5.5 from my proposal > into > >>a > >>>>single checkpoint of at least Priority 2 and maybe a priority 1 > level. > >>>The > >>>>new checkpoint would require implementation of the event model > specified > >>>in > >>>>the Candidate Recommendation of DOM2 for all elements. > >>>> > >>>>Jon > > > > > > > -- > Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 > 136 > W3C Web Accessibility Initiative >http://www.w3.org/WAI > Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053 > Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia > > > > > >-- >Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 >136 >W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI >Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053 >Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia
Received on Friday, 18 February 2000 13:09:35 UTC