W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19991105 review

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <unagi69@concentric.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 15:34:02 -0500
Message-Id: <4.1.19991203152936.00ba6b50@pop3.concentric.net>
To: lauren@sqwest.bc.ca
Cc: User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
aloha, lauren!

thank you for your extremely informative response...  the scenario which you
outlined was my understanding of the issue, but i have yet to really hear
anything concrete from assistive technology vendors on the topic of "what do we
need from the DOM" and "what does the DOM need for us to provide access to
content and make orientation information available and to facillitate

i understand that in a niche market as competitive as assistive technology,
firm examples may be hard to come by, but if microsoft, sun, and apple can all
sit at the same table and discuss issues openly, why not henter-joyce,
gw-micro, and the others?

the assistive technology vendors need to let both the UA WG and the DOM WG know
more precisely what it is they need from the DOM...  otherwise, all the UAGL's
talk of implementing the DOM to achieve accessiblity will be naught but hot


At 11:58 AM 12/3/99 -0800, you wrote:
>On 3 Dec 99, at 14:46, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
>> aloha, charles!
>> you raise a very valid question -- do assistive technologies need to use the
>> write functionalities of the DOM in order to provide access to content, 
>but the
>> working group has -- so far -- heard extremely little from ANY of the 
>> technology vendors whose opinions we've solicited, and whose representatives
>> have sat amongst us, detailing exactly what it is that they need from the
>> DOM...  this is input that needs not only to be plowed back into the UA 
>WG, but
>> the DOM WG as well...
>One of my reasons for doing the DOM in the frst place was to give 
>adaptive technology vendors a standard interface so they could 
>write tools that hook into browser, editors, etc which implement the 
>DOM. So I think such tools should implement the DOM, to enable 
>this. There is, to my mind, little point in implementing a proprietary 
>interface when a standard one is available, particularly since the 
>WAI groups have input to the standard interface and not to 
>proprietary interfaces in general.
>If adaptive technology vendors (screen readers, etc) implement 
>hooks to be a client of the DOM, they should be able to hook into 
>any DOM implementation with minimal changes. Otherwise they 
>need to change their client interface for each tool. For example, 
>SoftQuad Software's HoTMetaL and XMetaL implement the DOM 
>(more with each release) and Mozilla implements the DOM, and 
>MSIE implements the DOM, and .... so why reinvent the wheel 
>each time?
>If these tools can't use the DOM  for some reason, then the DOM 
>WG needs to know about this.

He that lives on Hope, dies farting
     -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1763
Gregory J. Rosmaita <unagi69@concentric.net>
   WebMaster and Minister of Propaganda, VICUG NYC
Received on Friday, 3 December 1999 15:27:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:24 UTC