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

Re: Some (minor) comments from Adobe on UAAG 1.0

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 19:01:41 -0600
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001101185254.02978ea0@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Ian,
Good to hear that Adobe is interested in the guidelines and that you had a 
chance to meet with them!

At 07:20 PM 11/1/2000 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I spent the day yesterday at Adobe (in San Jose) talking
>to developers about accessibility issues. I had some very
>productive discussions about a number of topics, including
>UAAG 1.0, accessibility of PDF viewers, and SVG. Here are two
>comments about UAAG 1.0 that I think we can address pretty
>easily. Note: I look forward to a full review from Adobe
>of the last call draft [1].
>
>1) Point 1: They would like the UAAG 1.0 to include a
>    requirement that the conforming user agent allow
>    other software to capture focus. I responded that I think
>    our document covers that requirement in checkpoint 5.4:
>
>    "5.4 Provide programmatic read and write access to user agent
>         user interface controls using standard APIs ..."
>
>    Write access to the focus amounts to being able to capture
>    the focus and change it. At least I think so. What do other
>    people think? In checkpoint 5.5, we mention selection and
>    focus explicitly as part of user interface controls. Should
>    we do the same in 5.4 (or in a definition)? Should we just
>    say in the Techniques document that assistive technologies
>    and other software (in this case an SVG rendering engine)
>    needs to be able to take focus.
>
>    I also pointed out that checkpoint 7.1 requires navigation to
>    all viewports (in this case, an SVG viewport), but that doesn't
>    cover the issue exactly.

JRG: We use to have a separate checkpoint that was considered an important 
special case of 5.5[1].  So my understanding is that this functionality was 
is part of the current 5.5.

>2) Point 2: In rendering PDF, Acrobat (on Windows) does not use
>    standard system calls for drawing text to the screen. Instead, it
>    creates a bitmap itself and causes that to be displayed. Since PDF
>    is a low-level page description format, is it "ok" for them to
>    do their own bitmap (since that's what the language is about)
>creation?
>    Note: Acrobat Reader implements MSAA apparently, so it satisfies
>checkpoint
>    1.2's requirement to use standard APIs for the OS. However, it does
>not
>    use the standard device API for drawing text.

JRG: The group may want to consider modifying the current checkpoint 5.3 to 
say:

<NEW>
5.3 For markup languages other than HTML and XML, provide programmatic 
access to content using either standard APIs (e.g., platform-independent 
APIs and standard APIs for the operating system) or other APIs that are 
defined to support communication with assistive technologies. [Priority 1]
                    Note: This checkpoint addresses content not covered by 
checkpoints checkpoint 5.1 and checkpoint 5.2.
                    Techniques for checkpoint 5.3
</NEW>

<OLD>
5.3 For markup languages other than HTML and XML, provide programmatic 
access to content using standard APIs (e.g., platform-independent APIs and 
standard APIs for the operating system). [Priority 1]
                    Note: This checkpoint addresses content not covered by 
checkpoints checkpoint 5.1 and
                    checkpoint 5.2.
                    Techniques for checkpoint 5.3
</OLD>


>3) Point 3: Checkpoint 6.2 says to use and conform to W3C specs. Does
>this
>    checkpoint apply to the Acrobat Reader since they only read and
>render
>    PDF? I think that we need to consider ways to help developers and
>    readers interpret "appropriate for a task".
>
>    W3C doesn't (yet) specify a similar "page description format"; HTML
>    is not about pixel-perfect rendering on paper/the screen (the HTML
>spec
>    emphasizes the fact that it does not require particular rendering).
>    You could argue that HTML + CSS are the appropriate languages, but
>    even that seems far-fetched to me.
>
>    A larger question is (and of course it's related to applicability):
>    should software that doesn't implement W3C specifications at all
>    be able to claim conformance? I personally would like the UAAG 1.0
>    to be applicable to user agents in general, not just user agents
>    that implement W3C formats. I think there is some grey area that
>    we need to work on:
>         - If you are creating an imitation of a W3C format (or if
>           W3C is creating an imitation of yours...), then for the
>           sake of interoperability and also because of the way W3C
>
>           works (with WAI review, etc.), you should (P2) implement
>           the W3C spec. So, implement PNG at least, but if you wish,
>           GIF, JPG, etc.
>
>         - If you are doing something entirely different, 6.2 doesn't
>           apply, and you can still conform.
>
>    How can we provide guidance for determining what is "available"
>   (e.g., implemented sufficiently) and "appropriate for a task"?
>    I think it's easier to talk about 'available' than 'appropriate for
>    a task'. I don't have any proposals today to address this.

JRG: I think this is exactly the situation that 5.3 was designed to 
handle.  Maybe if we modify 5.3 to include accessibility APIs we can expand 
the scope of this checkpoint.

Jon

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/CR-UAAG10-20000308/

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
MC-574
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
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2000 20:01:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:22 GMT