Re: [gnome-love] HTML Widgets a11y (was Re: GSOC 2008 advice)

[adel <netdur gmail com>]

yesterday on #a11y

10:31 < adel> hey, I need a little help, I am building javascript
widgets, am doing my best making the widgets accessible, currently I
use W3C's ARIA documents, dojo are doing the same but unlike dojo, I
only care (the accessible thing) about GNOME and its technology, is
ARIA the best approach to make dynamic web site accessible to GNOME
users? and how do I test those ARIA roles on GNOME?


On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Willie Walker <William Walker sun com> wrote:
> I'm retitling this because I was just deleting GSOC mail -- my inbox is
>  flooding and I needed to do some drastic filtering.  Many thanks to
>  Behdad for seeing this message and thinking of me.  :-)
>
>  For HTML accessibility, the best support is provided by the Gecko engine
>  that's in Firefox 3.  We've worked very closely with Mozilla on this
>  work, and we have pretty decent support for emerging web technologies
>  like AJAX/ARIA/LiveRegions as a result.  It was a VERY significant effort.
>
>  If anyone is doing any sophisticated presentation of web content, I'd
>  really recommend they use the Gecko engine that FF3 uses, and I'm happy
>  to hear this is on the Yelp radar screen.  I just cannot imagine the
>  effort it will take to add full a11y support to some other HTML widget.
>
>  Will
>
>  Shaun McCance wrote:
>  > On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 08:18 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
>  >> One followup, one other suggestion, one followup.
>  >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Luis Villa<luis tieguy org>  wrote:
>  >>>   * "widgets": Vista, OSX, and KDE4 all have widgets/gadgets/Kthingies
>  >>>   that are pretty, very easy to use, very easy to develop (since they
>  >>>   are web-based), and which display more information when needed while
>  >>>   staying hidden when not needed (both unlike our panel applets.) Some
>  >>>   work has already been done on doing this with gtk-webkit[1]- perhaps
>  >>>   that could be built on? (It seems to me that from a user perspective
>  >>>   this approach is really superior to applets and what we should be
>  >>>   focusing on long-term instead of reworking applets, but YMMV.)
>  >> Both screenlets and gdesklets have been pointed out to me offlist. I
>  >> was aware of both of them, but I didn't mention them here because I
>  >> don't think writing our own custom widgets is the way to go- we should
>  >> (at least to start) join the html-based widget bandwagon everyone else
>  >> is already on so that we can benefit from that base of applications.
>  >> Perhaps adding HTML widget support to one of them is the right thing,
>  >> though.
>  >
>  > Given that the Foundation has just earmarked US$50,000 for
>  > accessibility-related bounties, I'm curious how HTML widgets
>  > fare with accessibility.  I often hear that dynamic web 2.0
>  > applications are suboptimal in terms of accessiblity, and
>  > this would naturally translate to suboptimal accessibility
>  > in HTML widgets.
>  >
>  > I'd be very interested to see an analysis from one of our
>  > accessibility experts on this subject.
>  >
>  > --
>  > Shaun
>  >
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > desktop-devel-list mailing list
>  > desktop-devel-list gnome org
>  > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  desktop-devel-list mailing list
>  desktop-devel-list gnome org
>  http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list