Thread Subject: Re: Split 21 c into to provisions

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Mar 28 2007 9:20 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: Andi Snow-Weaver: "Re: Split 21 c into to provisions"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Ah

Thanks


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 4:27 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c into to provisions
>
> 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: None
• Previous message in Thread: Andi Snow-Weaver: "Re: Split 21 c into to provisions"