Thread Subject: Re: Starting discussions on the AccessibilityAPIproposal

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Dec 20 2006 1:10 PM

I think this is another place where 'provisions and "Sufficient techniques'
might help.

The provision would say what should be possible with an API. The
sufficient techniques would list existing APIs that meet this.

The provisions would need to be general enough to cover not just "Sit down"
experience.


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Sean Hayes
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 10:10 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Starting discussions on the
> Accessibility APIproposal
>
> I've been reviewing the AT API proposal and while I think
> Peter and Andrew have done a good job of capturing what is
> the state of the art today in AT API requirements, I have
> some concerns over the potential longevity of this proposal.
>
> The danger is it locks 508 into todays 'Sit up'
> computer/monitor/GUI type experience, and while this model
> has proved to be quite enduring, It seems entirely possible
> that with another 10 years of Moore's law, that it may be
> challenged or even superceded by other paradigms. With new
> classes of devices appearing, and other forms of software
> interface such as 3D, immersive, audio/video based. For these
> a 'minimum data set' such as that outlined in the proposal
> may be very limiting or completely inapplicable.
>
> To take an example - 'bounding rectangle' very much assumes
> the kind of 2D rectangle based graphic toolkit we commonly
> see today; but already we can see in several desktops
> toolkits a move away from this model, to a more video game
> influenced interface where objects have much more dynamic,
> time varying and irregular shapes - e.g. in a perspective
> view of text, a rectangle is a parallelogram. I'm not sure
> why AT requires the bounding rectangle of every character in
> text, but if it does, then in the presence of kerning and
> glyph substitution, font effects, window scaling, 3D warps,
> and so on, this may be very expensive to compute.
>
> As the state of the art of user interface progresses, todays
> AT techniques of translating a graphical UI may become
> insufficient to adapt mainstream software to those with
> disabilities or special requirements. The blanket application
> of a minimum AT API specification like this is that it might
> prevent development and adoption of user interface toolkits
> which permit adaption by AT at a semantic level; rather than
> by translating at a UI level.
>
> If we are going to specify a minimum, we need to anticipate
> user interfaces which span multiple output devices, where
> more than one window may be 'on top', and where there is more
> than one coordinate space. We need to anticipate range
> controls that do not present monotonically increasing
> datatypes, e.g. a 2D colour wheel which has no maximum or
> minimum. We need to anticipate alternate text models, where
> there may not always be a text caret, or there may be more
> than one. And so on.
>
> So while I appreciate the efforts in this activity, in order
> to support it, I would need to see the proposals be updated
> to look beyond API's being developed today to truly
> technology neutral ones which allow software to advance
> unpredicatably as it has done, while still including support
> for everyone.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sean Hayes
> Standards and Policy Team
> Accessible Technology Group
> Microsoft
> Phone:
> mob +44 7977 455002
> office +44 117 9719730
>
>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University