RE: A table navigation technique

Hi,
I'm not clear that we will accomplish very much talking about the
history of Active Accessibility.  The question is whether visual
browsers should provide direct serialized rendering of tables as a
priority one.  As I mentioned before, I believe many blind people would
prefer that visual browsers would make their lives simpler by providing
this type of table rendering.  Do you believe that blind users would not
like that functionality directly available from browsers?  If I recall
correctly, in one of the conference calls, the view seem to be that
accessibility should be built directly into the browser when possible.
In addition, hooks/API should be provided for the access technology to
get information in order to build specialized access technology or for
further enhancements.

Scott

> The burden doesn't solely fall on the ISVs.  Did you think Active
> Accessibility developed itself?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Luebking [mailto:phoenixl@netcom.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 16, 1998 12:48 PM
> To: Charles (Chuck) Oppermann; Kathy Hewitt; phoenixl@netcom.com;
> w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
> Subject: RE: A table navigation technique
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Why should the burden fall on the shoulders of the access technology
> developers?  My impression is that some of them feel forced to do it
> because browsers aren't providing the information in a directly
> accessible format.  Have you heard many access technology developers
> insist that they want to expend their resources on developing table
> access?
> 
> Scott
> 
> PS  I wasn't aware of Active Accessibility running on UNIX or Mac's.
> 
> > 
> > I agree with Kathy - some folks should try working with the technology
> > available.  For over a year now, WinVision 97 has made tables highly
> > accessible through Active Accessibility.  They even have a bunch of tables
> > in their web site to prove their point.  JFW uses a technique to
> manipulate
> > the document to unroll the table horizonatally.
> > 
> > Tell me why this absolutely must be in the browser code.
> 
>

Received on Monday, 16 November 1998 17:05:37 UTC