W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2001

Fw: (Access-Mozilla) Re: Accessibility API plans and cross-reference

From: Mickey Quenzer <mickeyq@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 06:59:55 -0800
Message-ID: <018401c0904d$789b5060$0601a8c0@speedy>
To: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
This messsage was sent fromAaron Leventhal <aaronl@chorus.net>

I thaught that it was interesting.  Maybe we should envite Aaron Leventhal
to join our team!  He manages the Mozilla accessibility listserv!

******* MQ *******
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Leventhal" <aaronl@chorus.net>
To: <mozilla-accessibility@mozilla.org>;
<ocularis-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: (Access-Mozilla) Re: Accessibility API plans and
cross-reference


> Phil,
>
> Java Accessibility is cross-platform, unless you consider it it's own
> platform, and not really part of the native platform. It's not really a
> possibility for Netscape to use Java Accessibility, which is built on
> our own cross-platform foundation (NSPR - Netscape Portable Runtime, the
> XPToolkit - cross platform toolkit, and the XPFE - Cross Platform Front
> End). It isn't an option to support accessibility by using native
> widgets, because our XPFE is written in XML (XUL), Javascript and CSS.
> In addition, only JAWS for Windows supports Java Accessibility. In MSAA
> there are more vendors supporting it - GW Micro (WindowEyes), ZoomText,
> and I think Dragon Dictate all utilize MSAA.
>
> That said, the reason for our comparison table between MSAA & Java
> Accessibility is so we can see, they really only have 1/3 of the states
> and roles being similar between the two APIs! I think it's  a shame and
> a waste of developers time to have each accessibility API represent a
> whole new learning curve. It would be nice if the accessibility APIs on
> different platforms at least utilized a common set of roles and states.
> At least some code sharing could be utilized then, in the form of data
> associated with the different widgets.
>
> Now we have a new challenge - the Sun time is developing the industry's
> 3rd accessibility API, Gnome Accessibility.  I think if a new
> accessibility API is created, it should be flexible enough to support
> multiple widget sets (hopefully without being over-engineered). I think
> if IBM teamed with Sun, the Trace Center, KDE and vendors interested in
> Linux, to develop an open source Accessibility API for Linux/UNIX, it
> could have momentum to move forward. The time to get this moving is at
> the Linux accessibility conference at CSUN.
>
> Aaron
>
>
>
> Phill.Jenkins@smtp2.chorus.net wrote:
>
> > The Java Accessibility API is cross-platform, but it won\'t work for
Windows C++ or GNOME applications, because they are NOT cross-platform.
> > I can\'t take Netscape for UNIX and run it on Windows, while I can take
Bobby and run it anywhere (Windows, UNIX, OS/2, etc.) Java is running.
Netscape & Mozilla are know as running on lots of platforms -
multi-platform, but it is not implemented in a cross-platform technology.
> > I view it as being ported to run on each platform.  So the question
Mozilla has, and other applications [very common in IBM and Lotus] that want
to run on multiple platforms have, is to which accessibility API do I right
to on
> > each platform?  It would be useful to have a chart showing the platforms
and where the APIs exist, it should also include \"standard OS controls\"
since they are generally accessible on the specific platform; in other words
assistive technologies write to standard controls.  It would also be useful
to list the assistive technologies that support the accessibility
> > APIs.  For example, JAWs on Windows supports the Java Accessibility API
via the Java Access Bridge; while the IBM Self Voicing Kit supports the Java
Accessibility API on any platform that supports Java.
> >
> > If all the assistive technology vendors got together and created the
standard API that they wanted all the OS and app developers to write to,
> > then the OS and app developers would want to listen, especially in light
of 508 and other regulations.  But who has the mandate to heard all the AT
vendors together?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2001 09:59:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:29 UTC