W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: Tentative meeting on the DOM with AT vendors for the User Agent Guidelines

From: <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 14:56:36 -0600
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256878.00739D29.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com>

> i'd advocate that DOM is just another tool/method, and if company A
> chooses to use DOM, or an  OSM, or some other idea, that is company A's
> decision.  i don't support the concept that *all* companies have to
> use DOM .  I understand the advantages and dis-advantages, just concerned
> about any "tone" we present to the AT community.

We need to distinguish between "browser company" and "AT company".  I feel
the "browser company" meets its part of the accessibility contract when it
provides information to the AT via the DOM.  If the AT doesn't utilize the
DOM, and that is the only [or best] method that "browser" provides, it is
still the AT's responsibility to provide the work around or implement the
DOM.  We can't go forward with accessible technology by always shackling
ourselves with legacy solutions.  The solution needs to be technically
accessible.  We can't continue to burden developers and authors with
redundant solutions either.  Redundant solutions cost TWICE as much.  Side
issues, such as whether some or when all AT's support it and whether the
user has the time/money/space/patience to upgrade both the browser and the
AT, should also be separated.

Phill Jenkins
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2000 16:02:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:25 UTC