[Accessibility] Re: [Accessibility-atspi] Re: a11y API/ABI Testing
david.bolter at utoronto.ca
Thu Nov 15 18:46:31 PST 2007
George Kraft wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 10:45 -0500, David Bolter wrote:
>> George, I was thinking we might break out different sections but want
>> your expert opinion. I was thinking we could separate by the 'layer'
>> or 'layers' that are tested. From API/ABI conformance to.... I'm not
>> sure how far we go? (Should dogtail and ldtp tools get mentioned here
>> do you think?)
> For ATK accessibility testing I would create three categories:
> Interfaces, Objects, and Attributes.
> In addition to Dogtail and LDTP, then you should mention Accerciser and
I agree Accerciser and Macaroon should be noted if we are to mention
Dogtail and LDTP, but I'm not sure we want to mention any of them on the
wiki page in question. It depends on our scope. I've done a little
research and thought about what you said on the call and I think your
approach of testing via mock application with custom objects at one end,
atk/gail/atspi in the middle, and mock AT at the other is reasonable
(what I mean by testing across 'layers'). Do you still agree with this
approach or has it hit any snags? Do you see advantages to swapping the
existing mock AT with other similar tools?
Where are the tests run? Is there a cron job somewhere that checks out
of gnome svn, builds, runs, and reports?
If migration from the at-spi-registryd daemon approach to a dbus
implementation happens, we can hopefully catch a lot of problems but
sticking it between our mock apps and mock ATs which will be very handy
Maybe my question is really: is there anything left to do? Perhaps just
community building and evangelism?
More information about the Accessibility