[Accessibility] Accessibility testing in LSB

Mark Doffman mark.doffman at codethink.co.uk
Tue Jun 3 09:04:00 PDT 2008


Hello,
> 
> AT-SPI testing in LSB
> ---------------------
> 
> There are some incomplete AT-SPI tests checked in to the LSB repository 
> under atk-tests. These are the IBM prototype tests that George Kraft has 
> pointed us to. As George mentioned the tests have little coverage; 
> essentially just the Component interface.
> 
> I think these tests are more useful to LSB than the ATK tests, as the 
> cspi and pyatspi libraries are more likely to be accessed directly. LSB 
> should have tests to check the compatibility of AT-SPI client libraries.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the purpose of the shallow tests is to check 
> interface compatibility. As AT-SPI and ATK are interfaces, that may have 
> multiple implementations, shallow tests should be developed for the cspi 
> library. This will ensure API compatibility across LSB certified 
> distributions. Deeper, 'Medium', quality tests could then be created 
> using the pyatspi bindings. These tests would be similar to the IBM 
> prototype tests - end-to-end tests checking a particular implementation 
> of AT-SPI.

In the last Open A11y conference call there was a discussion of 
Accessibility testing in LSB. (See minutes at: 
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Accessibility/Minutes/Minutes20080527)

I think that there was a general agreement that LSB standardization of 
AT-SPI libraries, such as cspi and pyatspi would be useful. I have 
written some information, along with a general plan on the LSB wiki at:
https://www.freestandards.org/en/LSB_Wiki:AtSpi.

Could anyone who is interested in seeing AT-SPI libraries in LSB please 
take a look - and add any information or opinions they have.

There is a very rough timescale for the work. Its not a trivial project. 
Perhaps contact with ISP RAS would be best at this stage, as they have 
performed this task a number of times.

The large issue that I think is unresolved is what to base LSB 
specifications on. Although its tempting to base them on the AT-SPI IDL 
this doesn't really fit with standardizing the actual language 
implementations. (pyatspi is not a direct CORBA translation, although it 
is very close). Best would be to use the library documentation for 
specifications, this is very complete in the case of cspi, but I'm not 
sure about pyatspi.

Thanks

Mark

-- 
Mark Doffman, Codethink Ltd. -  http://codethink.co.uk


More information about the Accessibility mailing list