[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Request for TC approval of our ODF Accessibility Guidelines document as a "Committee Draft"
On Thursday 11 October 2007 23:06:24 Peter Korn wrote: > Dear TC members, > > As the co-chair of the OASIS OpenDocument accessibility subcommittee - > and on behalf of that subcommittee - I would like to request your > review of our version 1.0 candidate draft of our ODF Accessibility > Guidelines, and your recognition and approval of it as a Committee > Draft document. In your email you made a reference to gtk+, so I looked at the document again; and found this; "On UNIX systems, use the GNOME Accessibility API. This can be done by following one of several specific user interface toolkits, including GTK+, UNO, XUL, and Java/Swing; or it can be done by implementing support for ATK or the Java Accessibility API directly, or by AT-SPI directly. In any case, it is highly likely that either ATK or AT-SPI support will need to be implemented for the editing/content portion of the ODF application. This is well supported by UNIX assistive technologies such as the Orca screen reader/magnifier, and the GNOME On-screen Keyboard." It looks like just about all accessibility frameworks have been mentioned in this paragraph! Well, except one. Trolltechs Qt has accessibility support thoughout its toolkit and is cross platform (so are the others, so why the 'on UNIX' part?) Also the sentence "use the GNOME Accessibility API" is unneeded biased, especially for a standard that I expect will remain unchanged for the next couple of years. Now, I'm not sure if I should be suggesting we add another 'favorite' toolkit there, I'm more thinking that an overview of technologies does not really have a place in a specification like ODF. I'm much more inclined to link to a some website that can iterate all the technical options there. Which means we can keep it up-to-date as new technologies arise. I suggest we remove the whole of the 2.3.2 chapter and link to an external source instead for this info. I also suggest we remove this snippet; I have no idea what it does in a specification; "It was developed by the GNOME community under the leadership of Sun Microsystems, Inc." as found in "GNOME Accessibility API" definition. Bottom line; lets sanitize this doc so we don't look like we are advertising the products of some parties that some of our members might even have links to. Remaining impartial in a standards document seems like a basic requirement to me. -- Thomas Zander
This is a digitally signed message part.