[Accessibility-ia2] Explicit name

[Alexander Surkov]

Hi, Pete.

I'm not Jamie but hope my answer makes sense :)

I think AT might want to announce that explicit name (say on focus)
and then use IAText to expose styles and subtree markup depending on
user interaction. Personally I would avoid artificial accessible
objects since they complicates implementation.

Thank you.
Alex.


On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Pete Brunet <pete at a11ysoft.com> wrote:
> Thanks Jamie, If both the accName and IAText::text are not helpful in this
> case then it appears that we need IA2_2::explicitName rather than a boolean
> property like IA2_2::isNameExplicit.  I assume the flag was to indicate that
> the accName was derived from ancillary content such as HTML attributes or
> associated labels.
>
> See also:
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/accessibility-ia2/2011-June/001339.html
>
> However, how would you get the text attributes in the case of using
> IA2_2::explicitName?  That string will be different from IAText::text.  It
> seems like you'd need the browser to create a new object containing the
> newly formed string from main content plus the HTML attributes and/or the
> associated label.  In that case we'd instead need IA2_2::explicitAccessible
> returning an object which you could then QI to get the generated text and
> associated text attributes.
>
> Pete
>
> On 7/23/2011 1:35 AM, James Teh wrote:
>
> On 23/07/2011 2:43 AM, Pete Brunet wrote:
>
> Why doesn't NVDA just always use accName for normal browsing instead of
> IAText::text? If that were the case then there would be no need to know
> when accName is different than IAText::text.
>
> In NVDA browse mode (also known as virtual cursor, virtual buffer, etc.
> in other screen readers), the text is presented to the user in a flat
> representation to make it readable as if the user were working with,
> say, a word processor. Thus, we want to keep the content as close as
> possible to the original content. Some reasons we don't always use
> accName to retrieve this content (and this is by no means an exhaustive
> list):
> 1. accName might contain content from descendant objects; e.g. a table
> row, a link containing a graphic, etc. If we just use accName, we must
> choose to either ignore information from all descendant objects (thus
> losing semantic information) or render content from those descendant
> objects and try to filter out duplicates (very ugly and complicated).
> 2. In the case of editable text fields and some other form controls, the
> name is not what we want. Instead, we want the value or text. (If the
> label is visible on screen, we do render it, but that's because we take
> the content from the label object.)
> 3. accName contains no text attributes, so all information about
> formatting would be lost. (NVDA doesn't currently report this
> information for Firefox, but we plan to rectify this soon.)
> Of course, we still want to honour overrides like aria-label, etc.,
> hence the request under discussion.
>
> Btw, I'm confused by your use of the term explicit name. I would have
> thought explicit name was the name the author "explicitly" requested
> (i.e. the override) rather than the original, non-overridden name. This
> is why I used terms like "override" and "from content" in my original
> proposal. We probably need to straighten out this terminology. Perhaps
> I'm the only one who is confused by this? :)
>
> Jamie
>
>
> --
> Pete Brunet
>
> a11ysoft - Accessibility Architecture and Development
> (512) 467-4706 (work), (512) 689-4155 (cell)
> Skype: pete.brunet
> IM: ptbrunet (AOL, Google), ptbrunet at live.com (MSN)
> http://www.a11ysoft.com/about/
> Ionosphere: WS4G
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
> Accessibility-ia2 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
>
>