Thread Subject: Re: Split 21 c into to provisions

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Tue, Mar 27 2007 2:35 PM

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

Gregg,

We are currently discussing provisions that are modeled after ISO; i.e a
provision that requires a visual focus indicator and something in the AT-IT
interoperability provision about notification of events (like focus
changes). So I think your concern will be addressed once we bring forward
the proposal.

Andi




"Gregg
Vanderheiden"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = To
u> "'TEITAC Web/Software
Sent by: Subcommittee'"
teitac-websoftwar < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
itac.org cc

Subject
03/27/2007 11:36 Re: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c
AM into to provisions


Please respond to
TEITAC
Web/Software
Subcommittee
<teitac-websoftwa
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
g>






Sounds good.

Should the direct access part be broken out though? That isn AT-IT
interop and really should be separate anyway. No?


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:21 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c into to provisions
>
> Gregg and Andrew,
>
> The AT-IT interopability sub-team is working on a proposal
> that includes 21
> (c) so let's table this until they are ready to bring forward
> an updated proposal.
>
> Andi
>
>
>
>
>
> "Gregg
>
> Vanderheiden"
>
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> To
> u> "'TEITAC Web/Software
>
> Sent by: Subcommittee'"
>
> teitac-websoftwar
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> itac.org
> cc
>
>
>
> Subject
> 03/26/2007 12:58 Re:
> [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c
> AM into to provisions
>
>
>
>
>
> Please respond to
>
> TEITAC
>
> Web/Software
>
> Subcommittee
>
> <teitac-websoftwa
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> g>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/> FAX 608/262-8848 DSS Player at
> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>
>
>
>
>

• Next message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Split 21 c into to provisions"
• Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Split 21 c into to provisions"