- From: Hans Riesebos <HRiesebos@alva-bv.nl>
- Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 15:20:31 +0100
- To: chuckop@microsoft.com, danson@miseri.edu, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Largely I agree with the points made in the text below. My view is that the DOM being developed by the w3c has greater potential that just be some DOM that comes with proprietary software. Maybe my comments enlighted this point further. I know that my point of view is not really practical, but more pragmatic. >>> "Denis Anson" wrote >>> I have been a long time proponent of MSAA because I believe it is an advantage, for the person with a disability, and for the person who is producing assistive technology, to have a common AT interface that crosses all programs rather than "special casing" each possible environment. <<< Comment <<< I agree! >>> Historically, each time a new version of Word or Word Perfect was released, it broke existing alternative access technologies. There would be a mad scramble by the developers of alternative access products to reverse engineer the new input strategy, and release a new version of the product that would communicate with, or work around, the new techniques of accessing the keyboard and screen. As a result, people with disabilities were *always* late adopters of new versions of productivity software. (For years, Words+ recommended that their customers use Word Perfect 4.2, even after it was no longer available!) <<< Comment <<< Nothing changed really (so far) >>> MSAA promises to be a standard interface that all software can use to communicate with all assistive technology. (Note that I say promises, not that it is.) If it is not rich enough to provide necessary information, it can be extended, so that AT can also use new calls to gain a richer environment, without breaking older technology. <<< Comment: I think that DOM holds the same promises. There is one problem though. MSAA in my opinion is a repair strategy, where DOM is potentially a real solution. What we need is a globally standard way to build a DOM. Then from the DOM we can start rendering for whatever user profile. What we do not need is visual rendering with the side effect that it gives you also a DOM-view. The ideal DOM is still far away. >>> Although I am not a developer, I strongly feel that special casing is a poor design strategy for AT. It guarantees that AT will always be behind the curve, and that people with disabilities will not have access to new versions of software that is produced. Exposing the DOM is a good idea for a number of reasons, but requiring alternative access devices to treat HTML differently than any other product is, IMHO, inviting a new software ghetto. <<< Comment: I feel that the term "exposing DOM" is in a sense a misleading. What we want is to use or have a DOM. Exposing DOM is not the action we are looking for. In this way many exposures of DOM will lead to the same pitfall. Every exposure will need developers attention ... Also the term "alternative access" should in my opinion read as just "access". Why should access to DOM have a "normal way" and an "alternative way"? >>> Denis Anson, MS, OTR Assistant Professor Computer Access Specialist College Misericordia 301 Lake Street Dallas, PA 18612 RESNA The International Organization of Assistive Technology Professionals Member since 1989 -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Hans Riesebos Sent: Friday, February 05, 1999 4:00 AM To: chuckop@microsoft.com; w3c-wai-ua@w3.org Subject: RE: Discussion of DOM with Glen Gorden of Henter-Joyce (A)
Received on Friday, 5 February 1999 09:19:42 UTC