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

Re: Review of section 6 in UA Guidelines

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:00:11 -0400
Message-ID: <3D41B85B.8000801@w3.org>
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, timla@MICROSOFT.com, aaronl@netscape.com
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org

Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> Ian,
> 
> Per our last phone call, I did a review of section 6 and agree with its
> content. What I would recommend, however, is that the pixel-level
> information mentioned in Note for 6.4 be explicitly called out for in the
> techniques document for example:
> 
> - Do we want the foreground and background color at the pixel location?
> - Do we want the bounding rectangle for an element at a given pixel
> location?
> - For a given pixel location do we want the corresponding DOM node and
> offset of the element?

The more I think about this checkpoint, the more I fear
that it's extremely vague as written:

    "1.  For graphical user agents, provide programmatic read access
         to visually rendered information."

This is the first appearance of this checkpoint. It has not
received the same level of scrutiny as other checkpoints
in pursuit of minimal requirements. Rich's comment highlights
that fact.

I think the Working Group needs to spend some time identifying
a minimal set of requirements for rendered information that
must be available through an API.

Input from people with experience using MSAA and other
APIs is extremely important here.

Thank you,

  _ Ian


-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 17:03:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:51:11 GMT