- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 02:54:07 +0100
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, "E.J. Zufelt" <everett@zufelt.ca>, Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, "david.bolter@gmail.com" <david.bolter@gmail.com>, Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, "Mike@w3.org" <Mike@w3.org>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't see why you would have to duplicate the whole accessibility > stack to provide focus tracking for a screen magnifier, can you > explain this a bit further? The remote system access server would need to translate the remote applications (as accessed by the accessibility tree plus custom hooks) into DOM. To support custom views/controls for which we do not have semantics in the web stack or to provide any application-specific customizations, local AT would have to make special interpretations of the DOM (either directly or as exposed to the accessibility API). Thus, the accessibility stack (converting remote applications into accessible interfaces) would need to be duplicated. If you disagree, can you explain precisely what you think the remote system access server on the one hand, and local AT on the other, would need to do? -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Sunday, 3 July 2011 01:54:45 UTC