Standard for helping Blind People using the Internet

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Standard for helping Blind People using the Internet

Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar
Hi everyone,

I am currently working on a protocol helps the blind people to use the
internet, some of the features supposed to be in that protocol:
- Its final format should not be so different of the HTML format, so
it can be transferred by the HTTP servers.
- Should be usable even if the computer monitor be switched off (so
the people with %100 blindness degree can use it).
- Still applicable for the normal usage.
- Emulate most of the current HTML controls or better can deal with
them.
- Use the client side scripts (e.g. JavaScript).

Currently, I created a draft for that protocol, and what I am aiming
to do now:
- Discussing the rules of that protocol with many people as I can, so
I am sure these rules are most applicable and useful.
- Start implementing that protocol as a plug-in or extension so the
blind people can start getting benefit of it.

I only need part of your time, opinions, ideas and suggestions so we
can help the blind people to get benefit of the internet.

Please anyone interested in that work reply my post, the following
steps will be:
- Start publishing that protocol rules, so we all give our opinions,
ideas and suggestions, and we all choose the best of them to be
implemented.
- Begin implementing the accepted rules.
- Release the protocol plug-in o extension as an alpha version.
- Review the rules using this alpha release with blind people, and get
their reviews.
- Release a beta version.
- Keep reviewing and improving the beta version till it be stable and
suitable to be a final release.

I am repeating again all what needed is some of your effort to help
our blind relatives, friends or even the ones we do not know, so they
can use the internet to learn, enjoy and stay in touch with the world.

I hope that protocol to be a standard one day so all the new websites
be usable by the blind people.

Thanks for the interest and help,

Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar
_______________________________________________
dev-accessibility mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-accessibility
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Standard for helping Blind People using the Internet

Tom Brunet
Hi, Mahmoud.  Is this draft currently available anywhere online?  How
does it differ from all of the ongoing standards efforts (WCAG, ARIA,
IA2, ...)?
_______________________________________________
dev-accessibility mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-accessibility
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Standard for helping Blind People using the Internet

Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar
On Mar 28, 4:21 pm, Tom Brunet <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi, Mahmoud.  Is this draft currently available anywhere online?  How
> does it differ from all of the ongoing standards efforts (WCAG, ARIA,
> IA2, ...)?

Hi, Tom. That standard represents my Master degree thesis work; it is
build over some previous effort of IBM and other parties, but it is
not registered within any organization directory yet.
After we discuss it together I will try to register it while I am
implementing it, just what I wish to find enough volunteers interested
in reviewing and customizing it with me if it needs any improvements.
By the way, I tried to contact the W3C (WAI), but they did not reply
me even asked to review the draft.
_______________________________________________
dev-accessibility mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-accessibility
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Standard for helping Blind People using the Internet

James Teh-2
In reply to this post by Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar
Hi Mahmoud,

I don't think I understand the purpose of this proposed new standard.
* Is it a standard for markup of document and application content
similar to HTML?
* Why another standard, rather than utilising or improving the existing
standards; e.g. HTML, ARIA, etc.? I understand that the current web
framework is somewhat tedious in some ways; i.e. application controls
must be scripted separately rather than having behaviour defined by a
standard, etc. However, would these efforts not be better directed
towards HTML 5 or the like?
* Why a standard specific to blind people? This means that only people
interested in writing content specifically for the blind would use it,
as opposed to the current standards, which aim to be accessible to all.
Why not help better integrate accessibility into the current framework?
* How is your standard different to the current framework?

Thanks.

Jamie

Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar wrote:

> I am currently working on a protocol helps the blind people to use the
> internet, some of the features supposed to be in that protocol:
> - Its final format should not be so different of the HTML format, so
> it can be transferred by the HTTP servers.
> - Should be usable even if the computer monitor be switched off (so
> the people with %100 blindness degree can use it).
> - Still applicable for the normal usage.
> - Emulate most of the current HTML controls or better can deal with
> them.
> - Use the client side scripts (e.g. JavaScript).
>
> Currently, I created a draft for that protocol, and what I am aiming
> to do now:
> - Discussing the rules of that protocol with many people as I can, so
> I am sure these rules are most applicable and useful.
> - Start implementing that protocol as a plug-in or extension so the
> blind people can start getting benefit of it.
>
> I only need part of your time, opinions, ideas and suggestions so we
> can help the blind people to get benefit of the internet.
>
> Please anyone interested in that work reply my post, the following
> steps will be:
> - Start publishing that protocol rules, so we all give our opinions,
> ideas and suggestions, and we all choose the best of them to be
> implemented.
> - Begin implementing the accepted rules.
> - Release the protocol plug-in o extension as an alpha version.
> - Review the rules using this alpha release with blind people, and get
> their reviews.
> - Release a beta version.
> - Keep reviewing and improving the beta version till it be stable and
> suitable to be a final release.
>
> I am repeating again all what needed is some of your effort to help
> our blind relatives, friends or even the ones we do not know, so they
> can use the internet to learn, enjoy and stay in touch with the world.
>
> I hope that protocol to be a standard one day so all the new websites
> be usable by the blind people.
>
> Thanks for the interest and help,
>
> Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar

--
James Teh
Email: [hidden email]
WWW: http://www.jantrid.net/
MSN Messenger: [hidden email]
Jabber: [hidden email]
Yahoo: jcs_teh
_______________________________________________
dev-accessibility mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-accessibility
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Standard for helping Blind People using the Internet

Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar
On Mar 28, 9:58 pm, James Teh <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Mahmoud,
>
> I don't think I understand the purpose of this proposed new standard.
> * Is it a standard for markup of document and application content
> similar to HTML?
> * Why another standard, rather than utilising or improving the existing
> standards; e.g. HTML, ARIA, etc.? I understand that the current web
> framework is somewhat tedious in some ways; i.e. application controls
> must be scripted separately rather than having behaviour defined by a
> standard, etc. However, would these efforts not be better directed
> towards HTML 5 or the like?
> * Why a standard specific to blind people? This means that only people
> interested in writing content specifically for the blind would use it,
> as opposed to the current standards, which aim to be accessible to all.
> Why not help better integrate accessibility into the current framework?
> * How is your standard different to the current framework?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jamie
>
>
>
> Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar wrote:
> > I am currently working on a protocol helps the blind people to use the
> > internet, some of the features supposed to be in that protocol:
> > -  Its final format should not be so different of the HTML format, so
> > it can be transferred by the HTTP servers.
> > -  Should be usable even if the computer monitor be switched off (so
> > the people with %100 blindness degree can use it).
> > -  Still applicable for the normal usage.
> > -  Emulate most of the current HTML controls or better can deal with
> > them.
> > -  Use the client side scripts (e.g. JavaScript).
>
> > Currently, I created a draft for that protocol, and what I am aiming
> > to do now:
> > -  Discussing the rules of that protocol with many people as I can, so
> > I am sure these rules are most applicable and useful.
> > -  Start implementing that protocol as a plug-in or extension so the
> > blind people can start getting benefit of it.
>
> > I only need part of your time, opinions, ideas and suggestions so we
> > can help the blind people to get benefit of the internet.
>
> > Please anyone interested in that work reply my post, the following
> > steps will be:
> > -  Start publishing that protocol rules, so we all give our opinions,
> > ideas and suggestions, and we all choose the best of them to be
> > implemented.
> > -  Begin implementing the accepted rules.
> > -  Release the protocol plug-in o extension as an alpha version.
> > -  Review the rules using this alpha release with blind people, and get
> > their reviews.
> > -  Release a beta version.
> > -  Keep reviewing and improving the beta version till it be stable and
> > suitable to be a final release.
>
> > I am repeating again all what needed is some of your effort to help
> > our blind relatives, friends or even the ones we do not know, so they
> > can use the internet to learn, enjoy and stay in touch with the world.
>
> > I hope that protocol to be a standard one day so all the new websites
> > be usable by the blind people.
>
> > Thanks for the interest and help,
>
> > Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar
>
> --
> James Teh
> Email: [hidden email]
> WWW:http://www.jantrid.net/
> MSN Messenger: [hidden email]
> Jabber: [hidden email]
> Yahoo: jcs_teh
Hi Jamie,

First of all I want to show my happiness for finding somebody even
interested in reading my post. ��
* Yes, the standard is textual markup document such like HTML.
* It is not another standard just improvement trying to avoid the
previous ones problems, and it is my wish that it success, so it can
join the HTML 5, but as I said before, no one was even interested when
I tried to contact the W3C, so I am trying to discuss it on groups
till the authorities wake up.
* That standard is not specifically for blind people, in my first post
I said it should be applicable for the normal usage (you can call it a
customizable HTML for blind people).
* My work is different in the following sides:
o It is about making it simpler, not to complicate it more (we can
talk for long about how complicated were the previous efforts).
o It is all about HTML, just customizing it, and improving it with
little extra elements, so the web developers be interested in using
it.

Everyone admits that there were and there are some efforts, but who
can show me any a real case in the production daily life.
My dream is to see the web pages applicable by the blind and the non
blind people equally, with the same functionality, no matter to be a
new standard or extension for an existing one, just please let's stand
and do it.

Please, Please, Please, let's stop talking and start doing, I think
the blind people deserve our effort, do not they?

So, is there anyone still interested???

My best regards,

Mahmoud

_______________________________________________
dev-accessibility mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-accessibility
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Standard for helping Blind People using the Internet

bhawkeslewis
Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar wrote:
 > * Yes, the standard is textual markup document such like HTML.

Back in 2000, W3C produced a version of HTML reformulated as an XML
serialization, called XHTML. This was supposed to be the beginning of a
transition from tag soup markup to XML markup. In practice, this hasn't
happened. Some of the reasons include:

1. XHTML offered few new features to ordinary authors producing
applications and pages that would make a business case for moving to XHTML.

2. XHTML was unsupported by popular browsers. In fact it still doesn't
work in the most popular browser, Internet Explorer.

3. XML required draconian error handling, but hand-authoring and the
existing systems for producing web markup were both error-prone.
Consequently, many XHTML pages break.

Does your proposed specification (you're not a standards organization,
so let's please not confuse things by calling it a standard) offer new
features for ordinary authors producing applications and pages, other
than accessibility features that will be of little interest to many authors?

Is content authored according to the specification compatible with
today's browsers and assistive technology? What happens when you try to
use the new features? Does compatibility depend on using the text/html
media type, and what will happen to that compatibility when HTML5
defines all handling of the text/html MIME type to the exclusion of
competing specifications?

Does your specification define error-handling, and is it draconian or
non-draconian?

 > * It is not another standard just improvement trying to avoid the
 > previous ones problems, and it is my wish that it success, so it can
 > join the HTML 5, but as I said before, no one was even interested when
 > I tried to contact the W3C, so I am trying to discuss it on groups
 > till the authorities wake up.

If you are using the text/html media type, it's very important for your
proposals to be filtered through the HTML working group since they will
be defining how browsers handle text/html to the exclusion of other
specifications.

Judging from the public record, I think there have been two problems
with your communications to W3C.

1. You raised issues on the wrong forums, namely a list for discussion
of the WAI website and a list for editorial comments on the document
"How People with Disabilities Use the Web".

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2wp7l8

There's a full list of public W3C mailing lists at:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/

One of many more appropriate forums for your email would have been the
WAI interest group mailing "for discussion of issues relating to Web
accessibility, particularly issues related to activities of WAI groups":

http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/

Since your proposing extensions or modifications to HTML, I would expect
you to have have sent comments on the HTML5 draft to:

[hidden email]

Or even to have joined the HTML5 working group (which is easy to join if
your not employed by a W3C member organisation). I see you haven't done so:

http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=40318&public=1

2. Your emails both to W3C and now this group are too short on detail.
It wasn't even clear from either your emails to W3C or your first email
here that you are proposing changes to HTML, which is a markup language
and content format, not a networking protocol. (HTTP is a protocol.) At
the very least, I'd have expected a link to a document outlining your
proposed changes to HTML.

 > * My work is different in the following sides:
 > o It is about making it simpler, not to complicate it more (we can
 > talk for long about how complicated were the previous efforts).
 > o It is all about HTML, just customizing it, and improving it with
 > little extra elements, so the web developers be interested in using
 > it.

Adding extra elements does add complexity. So it's not obvious how this
is simpler than previous efforts.

What extra elements are you proposing?

Have you thought about whether you could achieve the same accessibility
by baking it into the elements and attributes authors are going to use
anyway?

 > Everyone admits that there were and there are some efforts, but who
 > can show me any a real case in the production daily life.

Thousands of websites have improved their accessibility by following the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines published by W3C. ARIA extensions
to HTML have been included in web engines like Gecko, Presto, and
Trident and are planned for inclusion in WebKit, are partially supported
by screen readers like JAWS and Window-Eyes, and they are also being
integrated into the work of the HTML5 working group. They are also
beginning to be deployed on mainstream websites, such as Google Reader
and Yahoo! Mail:

http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2008/03/reader-and-aria-new-way-to-read.html

http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/misc/wai-aria-presentation.html

 > Please, Please, Please, let's stop talking and start doing, I think
 > the blind people deserve our effort, do not they?

This is rhetoric. What are your concrete proposals?

 > So, is there anyone still interested???

I'm always interested in this sort of thing, but it's hard to work out
just how interested without further information.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
_______________________________________________
dev-accessibility mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-accessibility
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Recent Firefox Crashes

mozilla accessibility
Can anyone reproduce the following behavior?

As soon as I update minefield to the latest version, it crashes  
instantly on restart if a screen reader is running. I cannot say what  
happens when the screen reader is not running.

I can run an older version just fine:
version 2008032705 runs fine with jaws and NVDA, but not with Window-
eyes.

Thanx in advance for any info...
-- Rich



The nightly version dated March 31, 2008 will crash each time it is  
run if jaws, window-eyes, or NVDA are running.


_______________________________________________
dev-accessibility mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-accessibility
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent Firefox Crashes

Marco Zehe-3
In reply to this post by bhawkeslewis
Hi Rich,

Rich Caloggero wrote:
> As soon as I update minefield to the latest version, it crashes
> instantly on restart if a screen reader is running. I cannot say what
> happens when the screen reader is not running.

This problem is already taken care of, tomorrow's build will be fine again.

Marco
_______________________________________________
dev-accessibility mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-accessibility
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent Firefox Crashes

Gregory J. Rosmaita
aloha, marco!

just for clarity's sake, will those of us who updated minefield auto-
magically today and cannot now get it to run will need to get the
midnight build of minefield from the mozilla site

https://www.mozilla.org/developer/#builds

and install it over the older installation?  should we be waiting for
a 20080401 build?  could someone please email the list when the next
(non-crashing) build is available, as i cannot find any thing at the
URI contained above that indicates precisely what build one is
downloading...

thank you, gregory.
-------------------------------------------------------------
SELF-EVIDENT, adj.  Evident to one's self and to nobody else.
                    -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
-------------------------------------------------------------
    Gregory J. Rosmaita: [hidden email]
         Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/
Oedipus' Online Complex: http://my.opera.com/oedipus
-------------------------------------------------------------

---------- Original Message -----------
From: Marco Zehe <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:12:15 +0200
Subject: Re: Recent Firefox Crashes

> Hi Rich,
>
> Rich Caloggero wrote:
> > As soon as I update minefield to the latest version, it crashes
> > instantly on restart if a screen reader is running. I cannot say what
> > happens when the screen reader is not running.
>
> This problem is already taken care of, tomorrow's build will be
> fine again.
>
> Marco
------- End of Original Message -------

_______________________________________________
dev-accessibility mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-accessibility
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent Firefox Crashes

Marco Zehe-3
In reply to this post by Marco Zehe-3
Hi Gregory,

Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:

> just for clarity's sake, will those of us who updated minefield auto-
> magically today and cannot now get it to run will need to get the
> midnight build of minefield from the mozilla site
>
> https://www.mozilla.org/developer/#builds
>
> and install it over the older installation?  should we be waiting for
> a 20080401 build?  could someone please email the list when the next
> (non-crashing) build is available, as i cannot find any thing at the
> URI contained above that indicates precisely what build one is
> downloading...

Those of you who haven't done so, please go back to Sunday's build and
uncheck the "Check for updates to Firefox" checkbox until the April 1
build becomes available. The last good build can be found at:

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2008-03-30-04-trunk/
for Mac and Linux, and
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2008-03-30-05-trunk/
for Windows.

Regards,
Marco
_______________________________________________
dev-accessibility mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-accessibility
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Standard for helping Blind People using the Internet

Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar
In reply to this post by Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar
On Mar 29, 11:36 am, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar wrote:
>
>  > * Yes, the standard is textual markup document such like HTML.
>
> Back in 2000, W3C produced a version of HTML reformulated as an XML
> serialization, called XHTML. This was supposed to be the beginning of a
> transition from tag soup markup to XML markup. In practice, this hasn't
> happened. Some of the reasons include:
>
> 1. XHTML offered few new features to ordinary authors producing
> applications and pages that would make a business case for moving to XHTML.
>
> 2. XHTML was unsupported by popular browsers. In fact it still doesn't
> work in the most popular browser, Internet Explorer.
>
> 3. XML required draconian error handling, but hand-authoring and the
> existing systems for producing web markup were both error-prone.
> Consequently, many XHTML pages break.
>
> Does your proposed specification (you're not a standards organization,
> so let's please not confuse things by calling it a standard) offer new
> features for ordinary authors producing applications and pages, other
> than accessibility features that will be of little interest to many authors?
>
> Is content authored according to the specification compatible with
> today's browsers and assistive technology? What happens when you try to
> use the new features? Does compatibility depend on using the text/html
> media type, and what will happen to that compatibility when HTML5
> defines all handling of the text/html MIME type to the exclusion of
> competing specifications?
>
> Does your specification define error-handling, and is it draconian or
> non-draconian?
>
>  > * It is not another standard just improvement trying to avoid the
>  > previous ones problems, and it is my wish that it success, so it can
>  > join the HTML 5, but as I said before, no one was even interested when
>  > I tried to contact the W3C, so I am trying to discuss it on groups
>  > till the authorities wake up.
>
> If you are using the text/html media type, it's very important for your
> proposals to be filtered through the HTML working group since they will
> be defining how browsers handle text/html to the exclusion of other
> specifications.
>
> Judging from the public record, I think there have been two problems
> with your communications to W3C.
>
> 1. You raised issues on the wrong forums, namely a list for discussion
> of the WAI website and a list for editorial comments on the document
> "How People with Disabilities Use the Web".
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/2wp7l8
>
> There's a full list of public W3C mailing lists at:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/
>
> One of many more appropriate forums for your email would have been the
> WAI interest group mailing "for discussion of issues relating to Web
> accessibility, particularly issues related to activities of WAI groups":
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/
>
> Since your proposing extensions or modifications to HTML, I would expect
> you to have have sent comments on the HTML5 draft to:
>
> [hidden email]
>
> Or even to have joined the HTML5 working group (which is easy to join if
> your not employed by a W3C member organisation). I see you haven't done so:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=40318&public=1
>
> 2. Your emails both to W3C and now this group are too short on detail.
> It wasn't even clear from either your emails to W3C or your first email
> here that you are proposing changes to HTML, which is a markup language
> and content format, not a networking protocol. (HTTP is a protocol.) At
> the very least, I'd have expected a link to a document outlining your
> proposed changes to HTML.
>
>  > * My work is different in the following sides:
>  > o It is about making it simpler, not to complicate it more (we can
>  > talk for long about how complicated were the previous efforts).
>  > o It is all about HTML, just customizing it, and improving it with
>  > little extra elements, so the web developers be interested in using
>  > it.
>
> Adding extra elements does add complexity. So it's not obvious how this
> is simpler than previous efforts.
>
> What extra elements are you proposing?
>
> Have you thought about whether you could achieve the same accessibility
> by baking it into the elements and attributes authors are going to use
> anyway?
>
>  > Everyone admits that there were and there are some efforts, but who
>  > can show me any a real case in the production daily life.
>
> Thousands of websites have improved their accessibility by following the
> Web Content Accessibility Guidelines published by W3C. ARIA extensions
> to HTML have been included in web engines like Gecko, Presto, and
> Trident and are planned for inclusion in WebKit, are partially supported
> by screen readers like JAWS and Window-Eyes, and they are also being
> integrated into the work of the HTML5 working group. They are also
> beginning to be deployed on mainstream websites, such as Google Reader
> and Yahoo! Mail:
>
> http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2008/03/reader-and-aria-new-way-to-r...
>
> http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/misc/wai-aria-presentation.html
>
>  > Please, Please, Please, let's stop talking and start doing, I think
>  > the blind people deserve our effort, do not they?
>
> This is rhetoric. What are your concrete proposals?
>
>  > So, is there anyone still interested???
>
> I'm always interested in this sort of thing, but it's hard to work out
> just how interested without further information.
>
> --
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Dear Benjamin,

So sorry for being late with replying your post, but I was really too
busy.
I will try to reply your post in brief, may be my posts were not clear
enough, so I will try to give a descriptive example.

My work is like a new car model, sure as all cars it contains an
engine, 4 wheels an so on, just with few new extra or different
options, and what I am trying now is to get as much interested ones as
I can to try that new model, to see if it will satisfy and fit the
market needs, but not trying YET to register that new car model.

So in points I can say again:
- It is HTML, please all believe me, it is just customized HTML. ��
- About format and the elements, it is ALMOST, but not totally, the
same as HTML; just the difference is how the browser will represent it
to the user and gather input from user.
- Sure the current browsers will need extra plug-in to be able to
represent it.

About the website representing accessibility features, I really did
not find many ones can fit the totally blind people.

I am sorry again for being late in the reply, and also sorry for being
brief in my reply, I will be happy to hear from you again if there is
still anything not clear yet.
Thanks a lot for your interest.

My best regards,
Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar

_______________________________________________
dev-accessibility mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-accessibility
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Standard for helping Blind People using the Internet

bhawkeslewis
Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar wrote:
 > It is HTML, please all believe me, it is just customized HTML.

Extending HTML through a standards process is a good plan. Extending
HTML unilaterally is problematic:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/appendix/notes.html#h-B.1

 > About format and the elements, it is ALMOST, but not totally, the
 > same as HTML

So what are the differences? Can you be specific? Are the details top
secret or something? Developing such formats in secret is unlikely to
attract much interest or meet with much success.

 > just the difference is how the browser will represent it
 > to the user and gather input from user.

Can you explain more?

 > Sure the current browsers will need extra plug-in to be able to
 > represent it.

What sort of plug-in?

 > About the website representing accessibility features, I really did
 > not find many ones can fit the totally blind people.

Can you elaborate some specific problems for "totally blind people" with
those websites that wouldn't be solved by better implementation of the
current HTML5 and ARIA proposals, and also application of the UAAG and
WCAG guidelines, and how your solution would solve them?

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
_______________________________________________
dev-accessibility mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-accessibility
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Standard for helping Blind People using the Internet

Aaron Leventhal-3
In reply to this post by Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar
Mahmoud,

Please let us know when you have some code & docs we can work with. This
community works on accessibility problems in a transparent and open
manner. That's all we're really interested in here.

- Aaron



Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar wrote:

> On Mar 29, 11:36 am, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
> <[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar wrote:
>>
>>   >  * Yes, the standard is textual markup document such like HTML.
>>
>> Back in 2000, W3C produced a version of HTML reformulated as an XML
>> serialization, called XHTML. This was supposed to be the beginning of a
>> transition from tag soup markup to XML markup. In practice, this hasn't
>> happened. Some of the reasons include:
>>
>> 1. XHTML offered few new features to ordinary authors producing
>> applications and pages that would make a business case for moving to XHTML.
>>
>> 2. XHTML was unsupported by popular browsers. In fact it still doesn't
>> work in the most popular browser, Internet Explorer.
>>
>> 3. XML required draconian error handling, but hand-authoring and the
>> existing systems for producing web markup were both error-prone.
>> Consequently, many XHTML pages break.
>>
>> Does your proposed specification (you're not a standards organization,
>> so let's please not confuse things by calling it a standard) offer new
>> features for ordinary authors producing applications and pages, other
>> than accessibility features that will be of little interest to many authors?
>>
>> Is content authored according to the specification compatible with
>> today's browsers and assistive technology? What happens when you try to
>> use the new features? Does compatibility depend on using the text/html
>> media type, and what will happen to that compatibility when HTML5
>> defines all handling of the text/html MIME type to the exclusion of
>> competing specifications?
>>
>> Does your specification define error-handling, and is it draconian or
>> non-draconian?
>>
>>   >  * It is not another standard just improvement trying to avoid the
>>   >  previous ones problems, and it is my wish that it success, so it can
>>   >  join the HTML 5, but as I said before, no one was even interested when
>>   >  I tried to contact the W3C, so I am trying to discuss it on groups
>>   >  till the authorities wake up.
>>
>> If you are using the text/html media type, it's very important for your
>> proposals to be filtered through the HTML working group since they will
>> be defining how browsers handle text/html to the exclusion of other
>> specifications.
>>
>> Judging from the public record, I think there have been two problems
>> with your communications to W3C.
>>
>> 1. You raised issues on the wrong forums, namely a list for discussion
>> of the WAI website and a list for editorial comments on the document
>> "How People with Disabilities Use the Web".
>>
>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/2wp7l8
>>
>> There's a full list of public W3C mailing lists at:
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/
>>
>> One of many more appropriate forums for your email would have been the
>> WAI interest group mailing "for discussion of issues relating to Web
>> accessibility, particularly issues related to activities of WAI groups":
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/
>>
>> Since your proposing extensions or modifications to HTML, I would expect
>> you to have have sent comments on the HTML5 draft to:
>>
>> [hidden email]
>>
>> Or even to have joined the HTML5 working group (which is easy to join if
>> your not employed by a W3C member organisation). I see you haven't done so:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=40318&public=1
>>
>> 2. Your emails both to W3C and now this group are too short on detail.
>> It wasn't even clear from either your emails to W3C or your first email
>> here that you are proposing changes to HTML, which is a markup language
>> and content format, not a networking protocol. (HTTP is a protocol.) At
>> the very least, I'd have expected a link to a document outlining your
>> proposed changes to HTML.
>>
>>   >  * My work is different in the following sides:
>>   >  o It is about making it simpler, not to complicate it more (we can
>>   >  talk for long about how complicated were the previous efforts).
>>   >  o It is all about HTML, just customizing it, and improving it with
>>   >  little extra elements, so the web developers be interested in using
>>   >  it.
>>
>> Adding extra elements does add complexity. So it's not obvious how this
>> is simpler than previous efforts.
>>
>> What extra elements are you proposing?
>>
>> Have you thought about whether you could achieve the same accessibility
>> by baking it into the elements and attributes authors are going to use
>> anyway?
>>
>>   >  Everyone admits that there were and there are some efforts, but who
>>   >  can show me any a real case in the production daily life.
>>
>> Thousands of websites have improved their accessibility by following the
>> Web Content Accessibility Guidelines published by W3C. ARIA extensions
>> to HTML have been included in web engines like Gecko, Presto, and
>> Trident and are planned for inclusion in WebKit, are partially supported
>> by screen readers like JAWS and Window-Eyes, and they are also being
>> integrated into the work of the HTML5 working group. They are also
>> beginning to be deployed on mainstream websites, such as Google Reader
>> and Yahoo! Mail:
>>
>> http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2008/03/reader-and-aria-new-way-to-r...
>>
>> http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/misc/wai-aria-presentation.html
>>
>>   >  Please, Please, Please, let's stop talking and start doing, I think
>>   >  the blind people deserve our effort, do not they?
>>
>> This is rhetoric. What are your concrete proposals?
>>
>>   >  So, is there anyone still interested???
>>
>> I'm always interested in this sort of thing, but it's hard to work out
>> just how interested without further information.
>>
>> --
>> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
>
> Dear Benjamin,
>
> So sorry for being late with replying your post, but I was really too
> busy.
> I will try to reply your post in brief, may be my posts were not clear
> enough, so I will try to give a descriptive example.
>
> My work is like a new car model, sure as all cars it contains an
> engine, 4 wheels an so on, just with few new extra or different
> options, and what I am trying now is to get as much interested ones as
> I can to try that new model, to see if it will satisfy and fit the
> market needs, but not trying YET to register that new car model.
>
> So in points I can say again:
> - It is HTML, please all believe me, it is just customized HTML. ?
> - About format and the elements, it is ALMOST, but not totally, the
> same as HTML; just the difference is how the browser will represent it
> to the user and gather input from user.
> - Sure the current browsers will need extra plug-in to be able to
> represent it.
>
> About the website representing accessibility features, I really did
> not find many ones can fit the totally blind people.
>
> I am sorry again for being late in the reply, and also sorry for being
> brief in my reply, I will be happy to hear from you again if there is
> still anything not clear yet.
> Thanks a lot for your interest.
>
> My best regards,
> Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar

_______________________________________________
dev-accessibility mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-accessibility
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Standard for helping Blind People using the Internet

Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar
On Apr 1, 2:46 pm, Aaron Leventhal <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Mahmoud,
>
> Please let us know when you have some code & docs we can work with. This
> community works on accessibility problems in a transparent and open
> manner. That's all we're really interested in here.
>
> - Aaron
>
> Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 11:36 am, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
> > <[hidden email]>  wrote:
> >> Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar wrote:
>
> >>   >  * Yes, the standard is textual markup document such like HTML.
>
> >> Back in 2000, W3C produced a version of HTML reformulated as an XML
> >> serialization, called XHTML. This was supposed to be the beginning of a
> >> transition from tag soup markup to XML markup. In practice, this hasn't
> >> happened. Some of the reasons include:
>
> >> 1. XHTML offered few new features to ordinary authors producing
> >> applications and pages that would make a business case for moving to XHTML.
>
> >> 2. XHTML was unsupported by popular browsers. In fact it still doesn't
> >> work in the most popular browser, Internet Explorer.
>
> >> 3. XML required draconian error handling, but hand-authoring and the
> >> existing systems for producing web markup were both error-prone.
> >> Consequently, many XHTML pages break.
>
> >> Does your proposed specification (you're not a standards organization,
> >> so let's please not confuse things by calling it a standard) offer new
> >> features for ordinary authors producing applications and pages, other
> >> than accessibility features that will be of little interest to many authors?
>
> >> Is content authored according to the specification compatible with
> >> today's browsers and assistive technology? What happens when you try to
> >> use the new features? Does compatibility depend on using the text/html
> >> media type, and what will happen to that compatibility when HTML5
> >> defines all handling of the text/html MIME type to the exclusion of
> >> competing specifications?
>
> >> Does your specification define error-handling, and is it draconian or
> >> non-draconian?
>
> >>   >  * It is not another standard just improvement trying to avoid the
> >>   >  previous ones problems, and it is my wish that it success, so it can
> >>   >  join the HTML 5, but as I said before, no one was even interested when
> >>   >  I tried to contact the W3C, so I am trying to discuss it on groups
> >>   >  till the authorities wake up.
>
> >> If you are using the text/html media type, it's very important for your
> >> proposals to be filtered through the HTML working group since they will
> >> be defining how browsers handle text/html to the exclusion of other
> >> specifications.
>
> >> Judging from the public record, I think there have been two problems
> >> with your communications to W3C.
>
> >> 1. You raised issues on the wrong forums, namely a list for discussion
> >> of the WAI website and a list for editorial comments on the document
> >> "How People with Disabilities Use the Web".
>
> >>http://preview.tinyurl.com/2wp7l8
>
> >> There's a full list of public W3C mailing lists at:
>
> >>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/
>
> >> One of many more appropriate forums for your email would have been the
> >> WAI interest group mailing "for discussion of issues relating to Web
> >> accessibility, particularly issues related to activities of WAI groups":
>
> >>http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/
>
> >> Since your proposing extensions or modifications to HTML, I would expect
> >> you to have have sent comments on the HTML5 draft to:
>
> >> [hidden email]
>
> >> Or even to have joined the HTML5 working group (which is easy to join if
> >> your not employed by a W3C member organisation). I see you haven't done so:
>
> >>http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=40318&public=1
>
> >> 2. Your emails both to W3C and now this group are too short on detail.
> >> It wasn't even clear from either your emails to W3C or your first email
> >> here that you are proposing changes to HTML, which is a markup language
> >> and content format, not a networking protocol. (HTTP is a protocol.) At
> >> the very least, I'd have expected a link to a document outlining your
> >> proposed changes to HTML.
>
> >>   >  * My work is different in the following sides:
> >>   >  o It is about making it simpler, not to complicate it more (we can
> >>   >  talk for long about how complicated were the previous efforts).
> >>   >  o It is all about HTML, just customizing it, and improving it with
> >>   >  little extra elements, so the web developers be interested in using
> >>   >  it.
>
> >> Adding extra elements does add complexity. So it's not obvious how this
> >> is simpler than previous efforts.
>
> >> What extra elements are you proposing?
>
> >> Have you thought about whether you could achieve the same accessibility
> >> by baking it into the elements and attributes authors are going to use
> >> anyway?
>
> >>   >  Everyone admits that there were and there are some efforts, but who
> >>   >  can show me any a real case in the production daily life.
>
> >> Thousands of websites have improved their accessibility by following the
> >> Web Content Accessibility Guidelines published by W3C. ARIA extensions
> >> to HTML have been included in web engines like Gecko, Presto, and
> >> Trident and are planned for inclusion in WebKit, are partially supported
> >> by screen readers like JAWS and Window-Eyes, and they are also being
> >> integrated into the work of the HTML5 working group. They are also
> >> beginning to be deployed on mainstream websites, such as Google Reader
> >> and Yahoo! Mail:
>
> >>http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2008/03/reader-and-aria-new-way-to-r...
>
> >>http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/misc/wai-aria-presentation.html
>
> >>   >  Please, Please, Please, let's stop talking and start doing, I think
> >>   >  the blind people deserve our effort, do not they?
>
> >> This is rhetoric. What are your concrete proposals?
>
> >>   >  So, is there anyone still interested???
>
> >> I'm always interested in this sort of thing, but it's hard to work out
> >> just how interested without further information.
>
> >> --
> >> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
>
> > Dear Benjamin,
>
> > So sorry for being late with replying your post, but I was really too
> > busy.
> > I will try to reply your post in brief, may be my posts were not clear
> > enough, so I will try to give a descriptive example.
>
> > My work is like a new car model, sure as all cars it contains an
> > engine, 4 wheels an so on, just with few new extra or different
> > options, and what I am trying now is to get as much interested ones as
> > I can to try that new model, to see if it will satisfy and fit the
> > market needs, but not trying YET to register that new car model.
>
> > So in points I can say again:
> > -  It is HTML, please all believe me, it is just customized HTML. ?
> > -  About format and the elements, it is ALMOST, but not totally, the
> > same as HTML; just the difference is how the browser will represent it
> > to the user and gather input from user.
> > -  Sure the current browsers will need extra plug-in to be able to
> > represent it.
>
> > About the website representing accessibility features, I really did
> > not find many ones can fit the totally blind people.
>
> > I am sorry again for being late in the reply, and also sorry for being
> > brief in my reply, I will be happy to hear from you again if there is
> > still anything not clear yet.
> > Thanks a lot for your interest.
>
> > My best regards,
> > Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar

Aaron,

Thanks a lot man, finally I got the comment I was waiting for, sure my
work is not a secret, just was checking if there is anyone interested.
I will start publishing my work in pieces, so we can:
- Review these pieces together one by one.
- Compare that piece with the related pieces in the others work,
standards, and suggestions, and the best will be applied.
But I am asking, should I start publishing after that post, or create
new post for each piece, or create new group so any new interested
comer can keep track of our discussion with no confusion?

My best regards,
Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar
_______________________________________________
dev-accessibility mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-accessibility
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Standard for helping Blind People using the Internet

bhawkeslewis
Mahmoud Abd-El Sattar wrote:
> I will start publishing my work in pieces, so we can:
> - Review these pieces together one by one.
> - Compare that piece with the related pieces in the others work,
> standards, and suggestions, and the best will be applied.
> But I am asking, should I start publishing after that post, or create
> new post for each piece, or create new group so any new interested
> comer can keep track of our discussion with no confusion?

Well, it's your project.

Personally, I think keeping it radically separate from the HTML5 work
will actively harm your chances of success because HTML5 is going to
define how text/html is actually handled by browsers, pretty much end of
story. It's a W3C draft where browser buy-in is a sine qua non of
features being included. If your proposal requires extensions to HTML5
doesn't ultimately make it into HTML5 then it will probably go nowhere.
Therefore persuading the HTML5 working group of your proposals is your
number one task in terms of getting this thing implemented.

Maybe you think the HTML5 working group is too high-bandwidth for a
focused discussion, you might look at whether the http://html4all.org/ 
group would be an appropriate place to discuss your proposals.

But if you really want to go it alone then you need a dedicated mailing
list to discuss and announce changes and news. Optional components would
include a wiki, a forum, and an IRC channel on Freenode.

In terms of how to publish your proposals, you need an authoritative
draft specification. This should represent the whole of your current
thinking, not be published in bits and pieces. Ideally, it should be in
some form of version control, so that people can follow updates to the
specification and see what changed from previous versions. (W3C drafts
are all version controlled with CVS.)

Hope that helps.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

_______________________________________________
dev-accessibility mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-accessibility