W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: native rendering of video and communication with AccessAPI

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:16:40 +0100
To: "'WAI-ua'" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t23312ycwxe0ny@pc078.coreteam.oslo.opera.com>

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:37:07 +0100, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu> wrote:


> There are issues:
> a. "Rendered Natively" is a cause for concern, as UAAG does not have a
> definition. This definition would also apply to UAs that have native  
> support for SVG, MathML, etc.

"without the aid of a third party plugin or similar". An extension that is  
designed specifically for the product counts as native once installed, a  
generic plugin does not.

(Although this raises the issue of whether plugins should pass information  
to the containing application, which would then be responsible for passing  
it to the accessibility API. It makes sense to me that this IS the case.  
We should look also at what CDF says about this).

> b. In addition to the DOM, should the UA explicitly communicate the role  
> and state of controls to the appropriate accessibility API or platform
> accessibility mechanism? I think YES.

Agreed

> c. How does the UA reveal the keybindings, if any, to the user? I think  
> this can be covered in techniques.

Yep. Same as for all other controls the UA has.

> d. The author may provide scripted controls in place of the native  
> controls.
> Should the user be able to override or toggle between the author supplied
> controls and UA supplied controls? I think yes.

Yes in principle. Because this might require recognising arbitrary script,  
it should probably be boiled down in practice to "the user can request the  
native controls to be turned on" - any half-decent custom interface is  
likely to be better than the basic one supplied, so suhtting it down is  
probably more often a bad idea than a good one... (but many interfaces  
will not have any accessibility built in so users will need the basic  
controls as a safety).

> f. Need for a proposal for a new checkpoint...not sure.

I am not sure that there is an obvious new checkpoint required - I *think*  
all this stuff is already there (although it would be a good idea to  
check...)

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals              Try the Kestrel - Opera 9.5 alpha
Received on Monday, 10 December 2007 09:16:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:51:50 GMT