- From: Kevin E Kelly <kekelly@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 12:04:38 -0600
- To: public-cdf@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org
- Cc: Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org, member-cdf@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFA9AB01CF.888A4F0E-ON85257162.00628E5A-85257162.006300E5@us.ibm.com>
Al, Please thank the WAI WG for these comments. Responses below inline, marked with <CDFWG>. Thanks, Kevin On behalf of the CDF WG If this does not satisfy your comments, please respond within 2 weeks. Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org> Sent by: public-cdf-request@w3.org 01/27/2006 02:18 PM To public-cdf@w3.org cc wai-liaison@w3.org Subject WAI last call comments on CDF, WICD, WICD Full, WICD Mobile, WICD Core <note class="inTransmittal"> These comments have been collected and lightly reviewed within the User Agent Working Group and the Protocols and Formats Working Group. Where they are not clear or you feel you need to reject a comment, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss the issues for the purposes of clarification and mutual understanding. Thanks, Al /chair, PFWG </note> CDF 1.0 review Sounds like are requiring DOM 3 through the use of ReferencedDocument - Document.Write() is gone - yes? Are you going to get the browser manufacturers to implement this as none of the support DOM 3 today? DOM 3 has accessibility features. <CDFWG> The Compound Document by Reference Framework (CDRF) is not requiring all of DOM3 to be implemented, but instead specifies specific parts of DOM3 or DOM3 compatible behavior that is required for CDRF profile conformance. <CDFWG> In order to be Compound Document by Reference profile conformant, (http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/Group/specs/CDR/wp1/cdf.xml#conformance) then: <CDFWG> Profile Conformance 1. Compound Document profiles which leverage the Compound Document Framework and which support scripting must have scripting interfaces that are compatible with the DOM Level 3 Core Specification. 2. Compound Document profiles which leverage the Compound Document Framework and which support events and interactivity must have event interfaces and an event processing model that are compatible with the DOM Level 3 Events Specification. 3. For each event construct within supported languages, the profile must define the event's namespace and local name, whether it supports the bubble phase, and whether it is cancellable, as well as the name of the DOM interface for its event structure (e.g., events.dom.w3c.org::UIEvent). 4. Any events that are defined to be equivalent to a corresponding event from DOM3 Events must have compatible behavior, such as the phases supported, cancellability and propagation across parent/child Compound Document boundaries. For example, for a "click" event from language A to be equivalent to the DOM3 "click" event, it also must be cancellable since DOM3 "click" is cancellable. 5. The profile must define how to map language features for event listeners, event handlers, and event targets into corresponding DOM3 Events facilities. <CDFWG> No change was made based on this comment. Section 2.2. You indicate that a child document may allow for event propogation up. You may want for selective propogation. Implementing Dynamic XHTML accessibility solutions usually involves placing a keyboard handler on the root document to capture all the keyboard commands and driving navigation. You would like to have this drive navigation of all child documents as well instead of having this in multiple interception points. The group should consider that DocumentEventPropagation be selective. You may not want all events to propoagate up. Your interface, below, indicates a boolean decision for all events: interface DocumentEventPropagation { attribute boolean propagate; }; <CDFWG> Yes, event propogation has been changed to: http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/cdf.xhtml#event-propagation <CDFWG> 2.2.1 Event Propagation Using the various methods and attributes described in [WINDOW], [DOM3EVENTS] and [DOM3CORE] it is possible for web authors to attach an event listener to a child document and then upon catching it dispatching it in the parent document on the referencing element. The following piece of script would create an event and dispatch it upon the referencing element: var x = document.createEvent("CustomEvent"); x.initCustomEventNS(" http://example.org/test", "test", true, false, null); window.frameElement.dispatchEvent(x); <CDFWG> This suggested change has been made. How do you deal with tab sequencing? Each document may have a different tabbing mechanism such as XHTML 1.X using TABINDEX and XHTML 2.0 using nextFocus. <CDFWG> Tab sequencing is addressed extensively in: Latest working draft http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/wicd.xhtml#focus-navigation Dec192005 document you reviewed http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WICD-20051219/#focus-navigation These sections have not changed between these two versions. <CDFWG> No change was made based on this comment. What is the default language per embedded document? For example, what happens when you have a lang attribute in a block, specified in XHTML, set to Spanish, and within it you have an object tag referencing an embedded SVG document or some other document? XHTML 2.0 requires a lang attribute on the document. It would be nice if we stressed consistency across other XML markups - or we require this on the object tag. <CDFWG> We are making every effort to combine existing markup "as is". Adding an attribute to the object tag for language should be taken up with the working group responsible for that element. <CDFWG> No change was made based on this comment. Section 2.3.1 Why do you refer to HTML4 in this spec. No HTML 4 implementation supports DOM 3. Also it is non-extensible which is problematic for adding accessibility semantics targeted for XML markup.This ius a step backward. It would seem that supporting an non-XML based infoset document format is a mistake. <CDFWG> The CDFR is not requiring that only XML infoset based markups shall be used in defining in a compound document profile. Therefore the CDRF will support compound document profiles constructed with non XML Infoset based markup. However, the Working Group has not defined a Core document or profiles that call for non XML infoset based markup, but allow the framework to support it should anyone want to define a profile composed of non XML infoset based markup. <CDFWG> No change was made based on this comment. 2.1.4 SecurityException http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-CDR-20051219/#security-exception Accessing parent or child documents through the DOM as described in sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 can be disabled for security reasons. In such cases user agents should throw a SecurityException <UAWG> User agents should inform the user that access has been blocked for security reasons. </UAWG> <CDFWG> Section 2.1.4 Security Exception has been removed. http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/cdf.xhtml#dom <CDFWG> This suggested change has been made. 2.3 Link Activation http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-CDR-20051219/#link-activation <snip> Nested hyperlinks are more complicated. The following illustrates nested hyperlinks. Suppose the parent document is XHTML as follows: <!-- parent.html --> <html:a href="LargeMap.html"> <html:object type="image/svg+xml" data="child.svg"/> </html:a> And the child SVG document contains the following: <!-- child.svg --> <svg:a xlink:href="DetailedCountyMap.html"> <svg:text>county map</svg:text> </svg:a> <snip> The implication is that the behavior of nested hyperlinks depends on how the hyperlink is activated. Here are some examples which illustrate common possibilities: * Suppose the user gives focus to an <html:a> within the parent XHTML document above and then hits the "Enter" key to activate that link. In the example above, the <html:a> element is the event target. This would cause execution of the hyperlink to "LargeMap.html". * Suppose the user gives focus to an <svg:a> within the child SVG document and then hits the "Enter" key to activate that link. In the example above, the <svg:a> element is the event target. This would cause execution of the hyperlink to "DetailedCountyMap.html". * Suppose the user uses a mouse or other pointer device to click on the work "county map" in the above example. Because this pointing device event occurs over geometry controlled by both the parent XHTML and child SVG documents, and because the SVG document is the most deeply nested, then the target element will be chosen according to the rules in the SVG specification. In the example above, this will cause the <svg:text> element to be the event target. The <svg:a> element will receive the event after bubbling from the <svg:text> element, which will cause a hyperlink to "DetailedCountyMap.html". <UAWG>The above scenario provides some intriguing accessibility problems. At each stage the user must be given a choice 1) activate the anchor, 2) enter the nested container. The user agent must inform the user of the available paths, so the user is able to give focus to the required element. Given the first 2 bullets in the scenario, the user agent will display the text "county map" with html anchor designation (blue and underlined, assuming no style sheet). When the user gives focus to the anchor "county map", the user agent should inform the user that a hyperlink may be activated or a child container may be entered. The user now has the option of viewing "LargeMap.htm" or entering the "child.svg" container. After entering the "child.svg" container can the user be informed that an additional anchor (svg:a) is available to be given focus and execution to display "DetailedCountyMap.htm" (the second bullet). At any point in the tree the user (with information available from the user agent) should be able to orient themselves (determine where they are) within the document(s) tree (parent document - html:a - child.svg - svg:a) and navigate back up or down the tree. The 3rd bullet "* Suppose the user uses a mouse or other pointer device to click on the work "county map" in the above example. Because this pointing device event occurs over geometry controlled by both the parent XHTML and child SVG documents, and because the SVG document is the most deeply nested, then the target element will be chosen according to the rules in the SVG specification. In the example above, this will cause the <svg:text> element to be the event target. The <svg:a> element will receive the event after bubbling from the <svg:text> element, which will cause a hyperlink to "DetailedCountyMap.html". Question: How will a pointing device user able to activate the html:a "LargeMap.html"? or Where in the geometry does one point to activate the html:a "LargeMap.html"? How is the user agent to inform the user that two (or possibly more) paths are available from a single (visually apparent) anchor? </UAWG> <CDFWG> The hyperlink/link activiation section has undergone a significant amount of change that I beleive addresses some of your comments. However, some of the comments should to be directed at the working groups that own the markup you are citing. Please review the new text below and resubmit new comments if CDF related issues have not been addressed/clarified. <CDFWG> http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/wicd.xhtml#hyperlinking <CDFWG> 5 Hyperlinking If it is possible to link from XHTML to Format-X, it should also be possible to link from any other supported format to Format-X. WICD compliant agents should support seamless hyperlinking between any of the supported formats. If linking from XHTML to Format-X will invoke content type specific treatment on arrival, then linking from any Scalable Child Element to Format-X should result in the same treatment. (Examples for this are special content handlers for RSS, Java, content download.) Any content type supported by the user agent, when linked-to originating from XHTML, should also be supported by linking-to originating from any other supported format. If a WICD compliant agent supports linking from XHTML to URI schemes other than http:// (for examples wtai:// and pcast://), then these URI schemes should also be supported, when linked-to from any other supported format. All URI schemes, supported for hyperlinking and the related functionality, should be supported, independent of the content format. <CDFWG> This section was rewritten and should be reviewed again. Web Integration Compound Documents (WICD Core) review Commenting on http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WICD-20051219/ 3.2.1 Why would you not allow for a link to be activate on a static rendering. Image maps allow for links on static elements? They in themselves are not dynamic but they tell the browser where to go. When you traverse the content within an static svg document, will there still be a DOM for the SVG document? Is the DOM gone such that you cannot walk the children. You are not explicit here. Remember, script writers may want to walk it. The difference is that the DOM elements in the SVG will have handlers that do not work. Whether static or frozen, why would you not want the links to be activatable. AT vendors would walk the DOM and want to activate the link. Is the memory reclamation for links that valuable. If you are going to do this then more work to address state changes of frozen and static so that AT vendors can monitor when links become active or disabled. <CDFWG> The basic idea is to have a set of icons, or thumbnails, of different SVG documents, and those icons are rendered statically - i.e., no animations (or maybe there are), but no activatable links. This means that the amount of resources required to render these icons is significantly reduced as they don't need to be live - an image can be rendered once and then just displayed. These SVG icons would likely be rendered inside some HTML content that linked to some sort of larger representation of the content - either the standalone SVG document or the SVG document within some XHTML, where the SVG content is rendered in its full glory - animations, interactions, links, etc. <CDFWG> No change was made based on this comment. 3.2.2 Scalable Background Image This document should state that background images MUST not convey any useful information. In other words they must only be eye candy. They must always be fixed. Low vision users, in particular seniors, will want to remove these images as they will not be able to read text in a document. Others will want to programatically disable the animation. <CDFWG> The use case here is something like a background image of the word "draft" on every page of a draft document. In this use case the background image does convey useful information. <CDFWG> No change was made based on this comment. 3.2.3 Scalable Overlay Objects (Sprites) This is a potential accessibility problem. If the Overlay is an SVG document, the user needs to be able to navigate it. How, through the DOM does a scripting application or user agent travers the overlay and come back? What semantics in the DOM indicate an overlay or a real active document? <CDFWG> The WICD profiles need to support transparent overlay objects that are non navigable IAW HTML, CSS, and SVG. Issues with this functionality should be addressed with one of those WGs. <CDFWG> No change was made based on this comment. 3.3.3 Transparency This is potentially an accessibility problem. If something is an overlay it must be possible to give something in the overlay focus. For example, you could have an xhtml menu and then launch a sub menu in SVG. Now, when it comes to these issues it tells me you also need to accomodate the work we are doing in WAI PF to address accessibility for roles, properties, and states. Associations need to be made between related objects once you put them outside the confines of a boxed area on the page. <CDFWG> No change was made based on this comment. 6 Focus Support This is inadequate. - How does one navigate in and out of a child document when TABINDEX is applied in the XHTML root and the embedded object is SVG? How does this impact the tab sequence when the embedded document uses something other than TABINDEX? - When someone is tabbing in a document, what is the navigation scheme for going into and out of an embedded document. Do you tab into the document, tab out, what? Does the user agent have to provide additional keys. There is more here than just being able to give an object focus. You need to decide for the author how navigation will work in and out of a compound document. This is a problem today for plug-ins where often there is no mechanism to use the keyboard to step into a plug-in and out. This document adds an additional level of extraction because documents are linked together in that you can navigate up to and into referenced DOMs. If this is the case, then how is navigation addressed consistently. <CDFWG> The CDF WG came to resoulution, that no single, binding method for navigation can be mandated by the WICD specification. Implementors were pointing out, that navigation is highly device specific and that it cannot be specified in generic ways. This is why the WICD specification describes focus navigation only in an informative section. Two things to note about the flat / two-dimensional focus navigation method: - mainly, it describes a role model behavior for standard handsets with 4-way joystick navigation - it is not based on TABINDEX <CDFWG> No change was made based on this comment. 6.1 Focusable Child Elements Comments here are not CDF issues but the inconsistency in document focus support. The focusable property, while available in SVG, is incosistent with XHTML. I would like to see the addition of TABINDEX, as implemented in IE, addressed for DIVs and SPANs. Note: this could be an added module. This means that there needs to be a capabiltiy for any renderable element in the compound document focusable. The referencing alone is not a valid reason. In the Dynamic Web Access work (www.w3.org/wai/pf/adaptable) we can make DIVS and SPANS be focusable but we do this by placing a TABINDEX on these. TABINDEX can have a value of 0 (focusable but in document order) or -1 (focusable but never in the tab order). This is consistent with IE and Firefox. Note: Progrmatically speaking, an XHTML anchor element has no property I am aware of that says it has an inherent "focusable" property. What happens with MathML? <CDFWG> We will replace the sentence "Which elements qualify as focusable elements must be defined by this specification or by the profiles that are built upon this specification." with the text "The language specifications that are used with this framework should define what elements are focusable." In addition, we will include the following informative note right after the previous sentence "The current XHTML specifications do not clearly define what elements are focusable. It is common industry practice that all elements, which have tabindex attribute are focusable, e.g., a, input, select, textarea, object, button, area." <CDFWG> This change was accepted and implemented as above. 6.2 Focus Event triggered Child Element Animations In our new DHTML spec you do not need to use anchors - you may also use divs and spans: <div TABINDEX= "-1"> <object type="image/svg+xml" data="foo1.svg"> <param name="animation" value="onfocusevent" /> </object> </div> It would be good to pull this in. <CDFWG> No change was made based on this comment. 6.3.1 Two Dimensional Focus Navigation (Flat, Graphical, Joystick) Accessibility requires logical navigation. You need solid rules for determining navigation. Viscinity navigation seems silly and in fact it looks like you skip elements that should be traversable. Although this section is informative, what if I have a declarative tabindex solution - would this take precedence? To point out applicable parts of your this section: The focus navigation algorithm consists of three phases: finding candidates for focus movements, calculating and adjusting movement based on a distance function, and moving the current focus point with possibly changing focusable element. - Navigation should be logical determined by document structure, or specified by the author - Requiring the user to follow navigation to all elements in a series without a consistent mechanism to compartmetalize and skip sections (like menus in a GUI) is a usability problem. This viscinity navigation approach should go away over time. <CDFWG> No change was made based on this comment. 6.3.2 One Dimensional Focus Navigation (Linear, Focus Ring, Tab) This is frought with usability problems. New DHTML work will allow you to skip to content without of semantic interest without tabbing through every element. (DHTML work). XHTML can skip this standard navigation by using Keyboard handlers and JavaScript. Got to this URL: <http://www.mozilla.org/access/dhtml/spreadsheet >http://www.mozilla.org/access/dhtml/spreadsheet This is very stressful for people with mobility impairements and people who are blind. The user is being made to traverse all elements whether needed or not. Although this section is informative, what if I have a declarative tabindex solution - would this take precedence. <CDFWG> No change was made based on this comment. 7.1 System Fonts System fonts must be supported by the operating system such that when their sizes are changed by the user they are reflected on the document. This impacts Font Sharing - I believe but that is not clear. This is not a CDF issue but it is important that this be stated. <CDFWG> No change was made based on this comment. 9.2.1 Interaction with the 'render' param User agents must allow others to change the rendering speed. High rendering rates (flashing) can cause seizures for people with epilepsy. <http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20051123/guidelines.html#seizure >http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20051123/guidelines.html#seizure CDF should require the user agent who is implementing this to configure the rate of animation. <CDFWG> Since WICD Core uses SVG and SMIL Timing and Synchtonization module to control animation rendering, this comment should be redirected to those working groups. <CDFWG> No change was made based on this comment. 9.3 Play Animations while Document is loading There is a problem when network latency and bit-heavy sub-objects cause the onLoad event to fire after the user has started to interact with widgets in the page. http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xhtml2-issues/HyperAttrs?id=7792 PFWG would like to confirm that this is a serious and common problem. The current suggested remedy from PFWG to the HTML WG is that <quote cite="http://www.w3.org/2006/01/25-pf-irc#T14-43-18 "> an onload script handler attempting to set focus after focus has already been set should cause the user agent to generate an exception to the script being executed and not move focus. </quote> Please continue to track this issue to its resolution. <CDFWG> No change was made based on this comment. 1.1 Scope - http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WICD-20051219/#scope In the description of the profiles the following items are listed: 1 Content author/provider has exact control of the presentation, including fonts, layout, color, etc. 2 Layout adaptation: layout can be based upon device characteristics - screen size, color depth, resolution, orientation. 3 Presentation can be customized to reflect a brand or user's personality. <uawg> first bullet: this can be overridden by the user through system settings, browser controls, and user css overrides. Correct? <CDFWG> yes Second bullet: this includes user system settings. Correct? <CDFWG> yes Third bullet: would like to add ?and needs? after ?personality? <CDFWG> This suggested change has been made. </uawg> 3. Scalable Child Elements http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WICD-20051219/#scalable-child-formats <uawg> We agree with the requirements for functions user agents must support. On reading this section, we hoped to find something about the user being able to scale the destination box. For example: a user has default font size set to 18 points. An svg element with fixed size (100x100) is referenced in a document. The default font size causes the information to expand behind the bounding edge of the svg element. The user must now focus on the svg and scroll within the svg. </uawg> <CDFWG> The CDF WG suggests this issue be taken up with the HTML group that owns the <obj> element. <CDFWG> No change was made based on this comment. 6.1 Focusable Child Elements http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WICD-20051219/#focus-management <uawg> We agree with the requirements user agents. ?Child-specific functionality should be restricted to preserve the author's intent. Should element specific functionality be desired, the element must advertise itself as being focusable or implicitly made focusable by a user agent.? There seems to be a conflict here. First you say child-specific functionality should be restricted. Then, you say ?should functionality be desired, the element must advertise itself as being focusable or implicitly made focusable by a user agent.? By default the user agent should make all child elements focusable, so when the user desires specific functionality it is available. From an accessibility perspective, while the user agent should respect the author?s intent, the user should be able to override that intent. </uawg> <CDFWG> The CDF WG does not agree with the rule that "By default the user agent should make all child elements focusable". Instead, all non- interactive child elements (e.g. SVG elements) should be treated like jpg, gif or png child elements are treated today. Only interactive child elements (and those with embedded links, etc.) may require focus. Thus, it is the child element, that must advertise itself as being focusable. 6.3.2 One Dimensional Focus Navigation (Linear, Focus Ring, Tab) http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WICD-20051219/#focus-nav-one-dim-linear <snip> XHTML and SVG have methods for linear one dimensional focus traversal. XHTML provides a default traversal order, and allows it to be changed with the use of tabindex attribute within one XHTML document. SVG's provides the focusNext and focusPrev elements which may be used to provide similar functionality within an SVG document. However, neither of these methods can be used when XHTML and SVG are combined. Therefore in the case of a WICD document by reference, combining XHTML with SVG, some alternate form of navigation is required. <uawg> This is indeed a problem. Perhaps, in a ?WICD document by reference, combining XHTML with SVG?, the user agent should default to one-dimensional focus transversal based on source code order. Tabindex and focusNext/focusPrev each have inherent accessibility problems, mostly confusing the user as to the next/previous element that will receive focus. Tabindex may take the user on an author defined path through focusable content and then through the remainder of the focusable content that was not part of the author defined path. The user can traverse this in reverse order also, so in this respect it is consistent. focusNext/focusPrev allows the author to define 2 distinct paths, separate from the source code order. For example, the content has 6 focusable elements. Each can have a unique focusNext and a unique focusPrev. In the list below the first element is the focusable element in source code order, the second item preceded with an ?n? designates the focusNext order, the third item preceded with a ?p? designates the focusPrev order 1 ? n2 p6 2 ? n4 p3 3 ? n1 p5 4 ? n3 p2 5 ? n6 p1 6 ? n5 p4 so following the source path the user would proceed 1-2-3-4-5-6 if the author set focusNext, starting at element 1, the path would be 1-2-4-3-1 and loop from there. If author set focusPrev, starting at element 1, the path would be 1-6-4-2-3-5-1. </uawg> <CDFWG> See response to 6.1 Focusable Child Elements above changes. WICD Full 1.0 review So, why does full only support XHTML 1.1 when your document specifies the use of XHTML 2 or other markups? Is it because the browser does not support XHTML 2? <CDFWG> The framework and core documents do not reference a specific version of XHTML, it is the purpose of the profile document to reference the specific versions of the markups being combined. <CDFWG> No change was made based on this comment. What is most concerning is these specs. address the use of ECMAScript whose implementation on HTML or XHTML is frought with accessibility problems due to gaps in HTML. We cannot afford to see this repeated. <CDFWG> Accessibility issues with ECMAScript should be addressed with the responsible working group for ECMAScript. <CDFWG> No change was made based on this comment. This specification misses picking up critical XHTML accessibility extensions found in XHTML 2 for the role attribute. This WAI PF working group is also developing (add-ons to XHTML 1.1) to address dynamic web accessibility (using JavaScript) and they are not being included here or in the roadmap. This is a big omission. Our changes can be added onto XHTML 2 so we would like these to be considered for adding on - otherwise you end up with another scripting accessibility problem. I would like to see these XHTML 1.1 extensions be incorporated into these specifications or have a clear migration path to incorporate them: <http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/Group/roadmap.html >http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/Group/roadmap.html. The following highlights our specificationss and our roadmap pertaining to Dynamic Web Access. Dynamic Web Content Accessibility Work effort: The working group has a focused effort to fix the accessibility of Rich Internet web Applications (RIAs). The inaccessibility of these applications has often been categorized as "JavaScript Accessibility Problem." These applications make use of script to re-purpose existing markup to create new application widgets not defined by the markup. The accessibility of today's markup, such as XHTML and HTML, depends on the mixture of content and presentation. The accessibility problem stems from the markup not providing the capability for the page author to provide additional accessibility Meta data which can be mapped by the browser to platform accessibility APIs when re-purposing occurs. The problem surfaces in many other circumstances ranging from when HTML uses the <table> element for layout to the SVG usage of primitive drawing markup to create complex graphics that imply richer semantics. Solving the problem involves the use of cross-cutting technologies whose principles may be used for accessibility reform across many industry content renderable markups. Finally, these specifications are intended to support XHTML markup rendered in today's desktop browsers. Three W3C WAI PF working drafts involved are described here: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/GUI/>Role Taxonomy for Accessible Adaptable Applications This specification defines an RDF taxonomy of roles which describe custom GUI widgets and document structure which may be used to support platform accessibility APIs. Roles encapsulate semantic information which may be use to help: user agents support assistive technologies; authoring tools enforce accessibility, and assistive technologies discover new custom objects and how to interoperate with them. <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/adaptable/>States and Properties Module This specification defines attributes that provide XML languages with the ability to add extra information about the behavior of an element. States and Adaptable Properties are mapped to accessibility frameworks (such as a screen reader) that use this information to provide alternative access solutions. Similarly state and author properties can be used to dynamically change the rendering of content using different style sheet properties. The result is to provide an interoperable way for associating behaviors with document-level markup. Additionally, this specification includes markup to fix keyboard focus problems with today's XHTML 1.X markup. How the fit into our roadmap: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/roadmap/>Dynamic Accessible Web Content Roadmap This roadmap that describes the problem, what W3C specifications will be used to correct the problem, and the timeline for the new specifications. Additionally, this specification does not pick up the standard role attributes delininiating semantic sections of a document: <http://hades.mn.aptest.com/htmlwg/xhtml-m12n-2/mod-role.html#s_rolemodule >http://hades.mn.aptest.com/htmlwg/xhtml-m12n-2/mod-role.html#s_rolemodule <CDFWG> Accessibility issues with XHTML/HTML should be addressed with the responsible working group for XHTML/HTML. <CDFWG> No change was made based on this comment. WICD Mobile 1.0 review This calls out for script support and XHTML Basic. XHTML basic does not support the script and noscript elements. Are you using ECMAScript to generate the entire page? This is confusing. The following is from XHTML Basic section 1.3.2. Script and Events (of XHTML Basic) The script and noscript elements are not supported. Usually small devices have limited memory and CPU power. Execution of script programs may not be supported. Contents should be readable even if scripts are not executed. Event handler attributes used to invoke script programs are not supported. Events are device dependent. An incoming-call event is unlikely to happen in a television. A generic event handling mechanism would be more appropriate than hardwiring the event names in the document type definition. <CDFWG> We are asking the HTML WG to include it. <CDFWG> This change has been accepted. Rich Schwerdtfeger Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist Emerging Technologies Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review Board blog: <http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=441 >http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=441 schwer@us.ibm.com, Phone: 512-838-4593,T/L: 678-4593, mobile: 512-876-9689 "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.", Frost
Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2006 18:02:10 UTC