[Accessibility] Re: [Accessibility-atspi] Re:ATK implementation for complex content, particularly HTML (based on last night's meeting discussion)

Bill Haneman Bill.Haneman at Sun.COM
Wed Apr 5 11:34:36 PDT 2006


On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 19:35, Aaron M Leventhal wrote:
> Thanks Bill.
> 
> The rest of your changes make sense to me.
> 
> Question: in a list of checkboxes I assume we just use
> ATK_ROLE_CHECK_BOX instead of ATK_ROLE_LIST_ITEM. What about in a tree
> view with checkable items? Don't use ROLE_TREE_ITEM, but use
> ATK_ROLE_CHECK_BOX there as well?

Yes; roles like ATK_ROLE_TABLE_CELL are catch-alls and "more strongly
typed" roles are preferred.

Bill

> 
> - Aaron
> 
> 
> Aaron Leventhal
> IBM web accessibility architect
> Voice: 781-583-4083
> Tie line: 364-5945
> http://www.mozilla.org/access
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Haneman <Bill.Haneman at Sun.COM>
> 
> 04/05/2006 02:16 PM
>          Please respond to
>        Bill.Haneman at Sun.COM
>                To
> Aaron M
> Leventhal/Cambridge/IBM at IBMUS
>                cc
> FSG Accessibility
> <accessibility at freestandards.org>, "accessibility-atspi at freestandards.org" <accessibility-atspi at freestandards.org>, accessibility-atspi-bounces at freestandards.org, Catherine Laws/Austin/IBM at IBMUS
>           Subject
> Re:
> [Accessibility]
> Re:      
> [Accessibility-atspi]        Re:ATK        implementation for        complex content,        particularly HTML        (based on last        night's meeting discussion)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 22:49, Aaron M Leventhal wrote:
> > I have posted the modified new-atk.html from Bill Haneman to
> > mozilla.org.  Thanks Bill for putting the new doc together.
> > 
> > Current proposal: http://www.mozilla.org/access/unix/new-atk.html
> > Obsolete proposal:
> > http://www.mozilla.org/access/unix/new-atk-obsolete.html
> > 
> > I'm still happy with the proposal, but we do need to go over the
> > changes to the Q&A section.
> > 
> > For example:
> > Q. How is the checkable state of a menuitem, treeitem or listitem
> > exposed?
> > Current answer: A. See ATK_STATE_CHECKED, AtkAction, and
> > ATK_ROLE_CHECK_BOX, etc. 
> > Obsolete answer:  A. There is a role_check_menu_item or
> > role_radio_menu_item. List items could contain checkboxes. Trees
> could
> > contain checkboxes and RELATION_NODE_CHILD_OF. 
> > New question: How does ATK_STATE_CHECKED and ATK_ROLE_CHECKBOX help
> me
> > with something that is a menuitem? I want to know if its checkable.
> > Are we supposed to expose the checkbox as a menuitem?
> 
> We have ATK_ROLE_CHECK_MENU_ITEM and ATK_ROLE_RADIO_MENU_ITEM for
> these
> sorts of situations; these imply "CHECKABLE".
> 
> On a similar note, we have ATK_STATE_EXPANDABLE for items with
> expanders, not sure if they ever appear in menus or not.
> 
> > 
> > That's one example of the little polishing issues I want to be sure
> we
> > address eventually.
> > 
> > Also, what do we do about the Adobe proposal that fits in between
> the
> > first 2 proposals? It doesn't necessarily fit into our new happy
> world
> > between Sun & IBM. I'd like to get everyone on the same page.
> > 
> > - Aaron
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Aaron Leventhal
> > IBM web accessibility architect
> > Voice: 781-583-4083
> > Tie line: 364-5945
> > http://www.mozilla.org/access
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accessibility mailing list
> > Accessibility at lists.freestandards.org
> >
> http://lists.freestandards.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/accessibility
> 
> 




More information about the Accessibility mailing list