Thread Subject: Re: Split 21 c into to provisions

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Mar 25 2007 11:00 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Andi Snow-Weaver: "Re: Split 21 c into to provisions"
• Previous message in thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Split 21 c into to provisions"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

GV: Hi Andrew. Two sets have already been proposed. They are below.



The number 1 item would go into direct access

The number 2 item would go into the 'AT compatibility'



Whether you do one or both is an independent question. I think doing both
is a good idea. We currently require both. But then say "direct or AT" in
the functional section.



Hmmmmm interesting question indeed Andrew.





>From ISO



1) Software shall provide a focus cursor that visually indicates which
user interface element currently has the keyboard input focus, as well as
the focus location within that element when one exists."



2) "Software shall provide assistive technology with notification of
events relevant to user interactions".







OR





1) A well-defined on-screen indication shall be provided for every
interactive interface element as it gains input focus.





2) The focus shall be programmatically exposed so that assistive technology
can track focus and focus changes.








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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew
Kirkpatrick
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 10:42 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c into to provisions

Gregg,

I'd like to see specific language that you're proposing. You are suggesting
that it would be an either/or situation still? What if one application does
both, supports AT for most things but supplements some areas of the app with
direct access - does that fit in still?



AWK




_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 5:49 PM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c into to provisions

21 c should be split into two provisions



The first half has to do with direct access.



The second half has to do with AT compatibility.



Confusing and difficult to report conformance with the two halves since they
are different domains.



If we look at this as "direct access or access via AT" then you can't even
say if both halves should conform.

They also are of benefit to different groups.






Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848

DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b

<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>

• Next message in Thread: Andi Snow-Weaver: "Re: Split 21 c into to provisions"
• Previous message in Thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Split 21 c into to provisions"