W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2002

Issue 519 - require out of process access?

From: Aaron Leventhal <aaronl@netscape.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:32:16 -0700
Message-ID: <3CB71A20.60401@netscape.com>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Sorry I've not been on the list much. Too busy getting ready for my 
first kid!

Here's the issue:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-cr2#519

The issue originally surfaced because Mozilla does not export it's DOM 
interfaces out of process, and is not entirely thread safe.
Mozilla uses XPCOM, rather than COM or CORBA for it's object model.

I was concerned that our DOM access would not be useful to 3rd party AT 
vendors. Too bad, because Mozilla's UI also supports DOM.

It turns out an AT can make use out of Mozilla's DOM by installing a 
component that acts as a stub on the main thread. The component would 
attach itself to the DOM (or via other non-DOM interfaces we have such 
as the web progress listener), and handle communication back and forth 
with the out of process AT. I have no reason to believe this is not a 
workable solution.

- Aaron



Ian B. Jacobs wrote:

> UAWG teleconference, 11 Apr 2002
>
> Agenda announcement:
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0041
>
> Participants: Jon Gunderson (Chair), Ian Jacobs (Scribe),
> Tim Lacy, Jost Eckhardt, Harvey Bingham
>
> Regrets: David Poehlman, Jim Allan, Jill Thomas
>
> Absent: Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
> Previous meeting: 4 April 2002
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0027
>
> Next meeting: 18 April, 2pm ET.
>
> Reference document 12 September Candidate Recommendation:
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-UAAG10-20010912/
>
> ==========
> Discussion
> ==========
>
> ------------------------------
> 1. Implementation Report Update
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/implementation/report-cr2.html
>
> JB: New entries in report: Jaws/IE, Mac IE, Accessible Browser
> Project.
>
> JB: There are some inaccuracies, however, for 3.4 alert
> requirement (2) is not implemented to my knowledge.
>
> IJ: The moral of the story is that the evaluation has to be down
> to the provision level, not an average over the checkpoint.
>
> IJ: I've started an evaluation with ION Systems.
>
> IJ: Other ones I'm hoping for: Konqueror. I've not heard back
> from Apple.
>
> Action JG: Clarify why "Max rating" used in some cases (in low
> implementation experience section) and "Avg rating" in some cases.
> Also, delete "+/-" with P (round down from G to P).
>
> ---------------
> 2. Test Suites
> http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/courses/2002-01-LIS350AR/project/html/index.html 
>
>
> JG: I'd like to move this information to the W3C site, but ok to
> link to this from UA home page for now. There are still a fair
> number of things to do on this HTML test suite. These test suites
> will become more important as more and more implementers will
> want to evaluate UAs for conformance.
>
> Action HB: Find out what SVG WG is doing these days in the way of
> test suites, and find out how to get UAAG 1.0 requirements
> incorporated.
>
> ---------------
> 3. Issues
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-cr2
>
> /* Jost Eckhardt leaves */
>
> Issue 521
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-cr2#521
>
> IJ: There seems to be a set of requirements related to formats
> that depend on the format, and some that don't.  So, for example,
> we want the UA to turn off *all images*, not just images in a
> format used for conformance. In some cases, we don't punish
> developers for implementing additional formats (even if
> inaccessibly). In some case, we may not care what the format is
> (e.g., "just turn off all images, whatever the format).
>
> IJ: This is also related to Content Type labels. We may not need
> Image content type label when you look closely at the
> requirements.
>
> TL: I agree that there seem to be two classes of
> formats. Different markup languages will be treated different
> than specific elements within that markup language. Suppose your
> UA implements markup languages A, B, and C. And the user can
> control font size changes in A, but not in B.
>
> IJ: One way I was thinking about these things:
>  a) If non-conformance interferes with other requirements (or
>     accessibility), then the requirement is format-independent.
>
>  b) If non-conformance does not interfere with other
>     requirements, then requirement is format-specific.
>
> IJ: Note that the granularity of evaluations should be down to
> the format (e.g., I do 1.1 for HTML but not for SVG).
>
> Resolved: In section 3.9 (Conformance) change "should" to "must"
> for "Information about which specifications have been implemented
> to satisfy the requirements of the document (e.g., those of
> guideline 6 and guideline 8)."
>
> Action IJ: Review UAAG 1.0 for which checkpoints should be
> "all formats" v. "formats that are part of the claim".
>
> Issue 524
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-cr2#524
>
> Resolved:
>
>  * Sufficient technique for 3.1 to turn off just background
>    images or all images (former preferred).
>  * However, since that disadvantages users who can use images,
>    we recommend turning off background images independent of
>    other images.
>  * We are not including a P2 requirement to turn off
>    background images but leave other images on.
>
> =================
> Completed Action Items
> =================
>
> IJ: Add issue - should we delete fee link requirements in UAAG
> 1.0 since not part of today's Web?
>
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0027
>
> IJ: Ask what the importance of in-process communication of the
> DOM to Rich and Aaron on the list. Should it be part of the
> requirement or be considered an implementation detail in certain
> environments?
>
> Source:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0027
>
> IJ: Add question to the issues list: Are there some requirements
> that must be satisfied for *all formats* corresponding to a given
> content type label, even when a claim is for fewer than all
> implemented formats corresponding to that label?
>
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0027
>
> =================
> Open Action Items
> =================
>
> IJ: Send proposal for Guideline 10 modifications based on today's
> teleconference
>
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0027
>
> IJ: Propose text to the UAWG on conformance profiles for use by
> other specifcations.
>
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0027
>
> JG: Write up user scenarios for why non-text-based highlighting
> important for users; notably which users.
>
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0027
> See HB comments:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0029
>
> RS: Write up paragraph about the importance of thread-safe access
> for in-process ATs.
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JanMar/0100
>
> ALL: Send to the WG the top 5 things you need through an API.
> Deadline: 4 April 2002
>
>
Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 13:32:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:51:07 GMT