- From: Denis Anson <danson@miseri.edu>
- Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:22:15 -0500
- To: <raman@adobe.com>, <thatch@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Charles Oppermann" <chuckop@microsoft.com>, <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
This "explosion" of features is exactly what I'm getting at regarding needing a standard interface for communication with AT devices. If the back end of access systems, whether input or output, were standardized, then products would differentiate themselves in terms of the user interface. A screen reader would be noteworthy in terms of ease of use and configurability of controls rather than the fact that it will read an Excel spreadsheet or other specific application that may not matter to some set of users. 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 T. V. Raman Sent: Thursday, February 04, 1999 5:36 PM To: thatch@us.ibm.com Cc: Charles Oppermann; w3c-wai-ua@w3.org Subject: RE: Separate, but equal ? Jim-- It's true that quality of table rendering --or any other form of rendering for that matter can be used by speech browsers (as with any other browser) to differentiate a specific tool/user-agent in the market place. However, this does not necessarily argue in favor of having a broken world to start with --just so the various screenreader vendors can compete on the basis of their specific ideosyncracies and kluges. I do not think IBM home page reader would do the above (somewhat dubious/immoral marketing)-- but I'm afraid screen-reader vendors in general will simply stick in heuristics that work for specific pages or popular sites and then market their product on this basis. Take the current state of affairs with Windows screen-readers-- in the last few years, each vendor has tried to say "we're the best because we can do foo with application bar" --and the net effect is that most if not every screen-reader impaired user I know has more than one screenreader installed --simply because "screenreader foo works in a desirable manner with application bar --but not with something else" --the combinatorial explosion of this mess that would result if access vendors started touting how well they worked with a specific site or class of sites e.g. CNN or Time is mind-boggling --the resulting FUD that would result helps no one. >>>>> "thatch" == thatch <thatch@us.ibm.com> writes: thatch> Scott said: thatch> "I am not at all comfortable with the proposal thatch> that access to tables will be provided by the thatch> access technology without the access technology thatch> developers agreeing to the approach ..." thatch> Isn't access to tables something that the access thatch> technology developer can use to make their thatch> product better than the competition? I look at thatch> it that way for IBM Home Page Reader. thatch> Jim Thatcher IBM Special Needs Systems thatch> www.ibm.com/sns thatch@us.ibm.com (512)838-0432 thatch> Charles Oppermann <chuckop@microsoft.com> on thatch> 02/02/99 08:04:17 PM thatch> To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org cc: (bcc: James thatch> Thatcher/Austin/IBM) Subject: RE: Separate, but thatch> equal ? thatch> These are good questions and they should be thatch> answered. In my experience, very little good thatch> information can be gotten off of the various thatch> blindness related mailing lists. Just email the thatch> companies directly. Mostly the technical thatch> support staff monitor the mailing lists, not thatch> their developers. thatch> However, this exact issue was discussed in thatch> detail at one of the face to face meetings. A thatch> particular concern was that the "native" thatch> implementation would be too generic and not thatch> serve the particular needs of any sub-set of thatch> users. thatch> This leads to the discussion that as a whole, thatch> there isn't much need to unroll or linearize thatch> tables VISUALLY on the screen. Very few users thatch> require that. thatch> Accessibility aid vendors can currently get the thatch> information about the table structure and use thatch> it. Only one vendor "forces" unrolling by thatch> modifying the object model. Several other thatch> vendors use the object model (in this case, thatch> Active Accessibility) to discover the structure thatch> of the table and provide navigation. thatch> -----Original Message----- From: Scott Luebking thatch> [mailto:phoenixl@netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, thatch> February 02, 1999 1:03 PM To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org thatch> Subject: Separate, but equal ? thatch> Hi, I've been thinking about the table issue and thatch> am not at all comfortable with the proposal that thatch> access to tables will be provided by the access thatch> technology without the access technology thatch> developers agreeing to the approach. In a way, thatch> what is being proposed is that access technology thatch> will also need to include certain aspects of thatch> browser technology. Do access technology thatch> developers really want to do that or are they thatch> being forced into it to compensate for the thatch> limitations resulting from various browser thatch> developers' refusal to provide appropriate thatch> direct access in the software being developed? thatch> I'm considering posting a note to some thatch> blind-related mailing lists which the various thatch> access developers read and get their opinions on thatch> this issue. If most of the access technology thatch> developers do want to also develop browser thatch> technology, then I probably won't have a problem thatch> with what is being proposed. thatch> Scott -- Best Regards, --raman Adobe Systems Tel: 1 408 536 3945 (W14-128) Advanced Technology Group Fax: 1 408 537 4042 W14-128 345 Park Avenue Email: raman@adobe.com San Jose , CA 95110 -2704 Email: raman@cs.cornell.edu http://labrador.corp.adobe.com/~raman/ (Adobe Intranet) http://cs.cornell.edu/home/raman/raman.html (Cornell) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own and in no way should be taken as representative of my employer, Adobe Systems Inc. ____________________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 5 February 1999 09:21:09 UTC