- From: Hans Riesebos <HRiesebos@alva-bv.nl>
- Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 17:51:33 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
User Interface and Document Object Model are two totally disjunct subjects. Roughly said thay are about "How to access" (UI) and "what information" (DOM). The UI can be exposed as an object-model, but it would be a UI-OM. The UI is historically platform dependent. Java tried to unify all UI's and coped with least common denomitor problems and in the end came up with their own UI. Documents are not platform dependent (cerntainly not on the www, which is the main concern of the w3c). Assistive technology has to tackle two problems: How to make the UI accessible and how to make the documents accessible. If one part can be platform independent this would be great. DOM is the answer there. A technique like MSAA and java accessibility solve both problems at the same time, which is great indeed, but makes the total platform dependent (if you can say that java is platform-dependent at all). I do not see this change although there might be only limited work involved to seperate them. The ideal D-OM would then complement a UI-OM. The DOM level 1 indeed lacks necessary richness (like reentrance, full featuredness, events). Nevertheless DOM is something the w3c can and should promote in my opinion. I keep promoting this view for the following reasons: 1) I think it holds the biggest promise for the future. Although practical solutions are not nearby, we do want the best in the future (don't we?) 2) Like others, I do think that the UI is out of the scope of the guidelines. UI-accessibility is an important issue but touches very much proprietary implementations. The UAGL must say what a UA should be able to do, but not by dictating a UI. The UAGL must say what means of input should be used (e.g. keyboard), but not what specific keystrokes. 3) DOM is too important not to keep it in the UA is some form. Hans Riesebos (HRiesebos@alva-bv.nl) ALVA BV, The Netherlands
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 1999 11:50:11 UTC