- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 12:12:36 -0600
- To: WAI UA group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
In response to charles. In my interpretation of the user agent types, if a palmtop has text-to-speech capabilites and uses text-to-speech to render the a WWW document then to be compatible with the guidelines it must implement the user agent type techniques associated with auditory rendering. Whether it is done by the developer or through assistive technology, the guidelines would not care. The guidelines only care about the funcational user interface as the result for that user agent media type. I am not sure how many palmtop developers would include text-to-speech for just disability access. But since there are many other reasons to include text-to-speech capabilities, let us have guidelines for that media type to help them make it accessible to people with disabilities that can beenfit from that media type. It is the media type that is important, not whether it is a plamtop or desktop; naive or through assistive technology that is important for our guidelines. Although we may want to have a media type that is related to the LCD displays found on palmtop devices. I do agree that palmtops are potentially very useful to persons with disabilities for many types of tasks, but we need to focus on WWW access. There are other groups that are working on some of the other issues you mention. If you or others are interested, I would suggest contacting the trace center. I beleive they are doing a lot of work on access that includes palmtop technologies (www.trace.wisc.edu). We may want to consider having a Kiosk media type that could reference the use of palmtop technology for Kiosks based on WWW technology. But I think this should not be a primary task at this time. Jon At 02:29 PM 1/2/99 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >I am not sure if this is the case, and I doubt that it will continue to be >the case. Palmtops are capable of interfacing with computer devices, and >could be used for example to provide assistive access to kiosks, ATMs and >other public information devices. They are also, in essence, little >computers which can run software. Since they could be used as a personal >assistive device, a User agent designed for a palmtop should where >possible provide an interface. More to the point, if we say now that this >is not necessary, and then decide in a year or two that it would have been >a good idea, we are doing a disservice to developers. If we think that it >is not very useful now, but we expect it to be necessary in two years, we >should flag that by requiring it 'where possible'. That provides a >common-sense test. It also notifies designers now that their products may >have to be extended to provide a particular functionality in the future - >this can make life a lot easier than having to retrofit accessibility into >a product afterwards. > >Charles McCathieNevile > >On Fri, 1 Jan 1999, Jon Gunderson wrote: > > Technologies like palm tops I do not think have any assistive technologies, > so it maybe impossible for it to be compatible with assistive technology. > If it wants to provide access to people with visual impiarments it would > need to directly implement the user agent techniques that appply to Braille > ad Auditory rendering. > > Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign 1207 S. Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 Voice: 217-244-5870 Fax: 217-333-0248 E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
Received on Monday, 4 January 1999 13:11:49 UTC