RE: ACTION-1068: reply to comment on 4.1.4

Works for me.

-Jan

(MR) JAN RICHARDS
PROJECT MANAGER
INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)
OCAD UNIVERSITY

T 416 977 6000 x3957
F 416 977 9844
E jrichards@ocadu.ca<mailto:jrichards@ocadu.ca?Subject=Re%3A%20AUWG%20Teleconference%20for%2017%20March%202014%20%28Boston%20time%20has%20changed%20-%20%20please%20re-check%20time%29&In-Reply-To=%3C0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB012E4B50AC%40ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca%3E&References=%3C0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB012E4B50AC%40ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca%3E>

________________________________
From: Greg Lowney [gcl-0039@access-research.org]
Sent: February-05-15 11:48 PM
To: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group
Subject: ACTION-1068: reply to comment on 4.1.4

Comment MS06 reads "4.1.4 DOM could be AA. Providing AT developers a way to go around accessibility APIs is not always a good thing, as it results in inconsistent user experiences based on the AT developers interpretation."

Proposed Response: We do not feel that it is a bad thing for different AT to provide different user experiences. Such differences can be influenced by many factors, only one of which is their choice of gathering information via the DOM, platform API, and/or UA-specific means. We believe, that the field generally agrees, that diverse user experiences, and allowing the user to choose the tool that best supports their needs, is not only good but important. Typically, tools relying on platform API alone are able to provide a baseline-level of functionality across many applications, but other tools are able to provide a richer experience for specific applications by using a richer API. Users may choose one or the other based on their situation and needs. We believe that UA should support both approaches, and other reviewers have concurred, so DOM access is retained at Level A.