Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 1.3 ready for review
> we can go with VARIANT as we did for object attributes. > > I'm not sure this makes sense. Do you mean standard constants would be > numeric and custom ones would be strings? yes On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:41 PM, James Teh wrote: > On 10/10/2012 5:31 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote: >>> >>> Using strings [for IAccessibleAction] >>> >>> is a touch more expensive, but it's negligible and more extensible. >> >> we can go with VARIANT as we did for object attributes. > > I'm not sure this makes sense. Do you mean standard constants would be > numeric and custom ones would be strings? > > > Jamie > > -- > James Teh > Director, NV Access Limited > Email: ja...@nvaccess.org > Web site: http://www.nvaccess.org/ > Phone: +61 7 5667 8372 > ___ > Accessibility-ia2 mailing list > Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2 ___ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 1.3 ready for review
On 10/10/2012 5:31 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote: Using strings [for IAccessibleAction] is a touch more expensive, but it's negligible and more extensible. we can go with VARIANT as we did for object attributes. I'm not sure this makes sense. Do you mean standard constants would be numeric and custom ones would be strings? Jamie -- James Teh Director, NV Access Limited Email: ja...@nvaccess.org Web site: http://www.nvaccess.org/ Phone: +61 7 5667 8372 ___ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 1.3 ready for review
>> Btw, I would prefer doAction taking a BSTR rather than negative >> constant. Otherwise we should standardize all possible actions and we >> don't leave a room for the server to introduce non-standard actions. > > This requires a new method (and thus a new interface), which was the main > reason for avoiding it. However, I'm not really against this. I see. > Using strings > is a touch more expensive, but it's negligible and more extensible. we can go with VARIANT as we did for object attributes. Alex. On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:24 PM, James Teh wrote: > On 10/10/2012 5:07 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote: >> >> It seems [introducing actions for editable text operations] doesn't answer >> why we can't turn out the whole >> IAccessibleEditableText interface into actions. > > I agree and tend to think this is the way forward. > > >> Btw, I would prefer doAction taking a BSTR rather than negative >> constant. Otherwise we should standardize all possible actions and we >> don't leave a room for the server to introduce non-standard actions. > > This requires a new method (and thus a new interface), which was the main > reason for avoiding it. However, I'm not really against this. Using strings > is a touch more expensive, but it's negligible and more extensible. > > 6) IAccessibleHypertext2::hyperlinks. Just to make sure: we decided to go with array instead EnumVariant? Do AT want to get all items at once even if the document is big and has many links? >> >> It seems we didn't go with EnumVariant at all but we added maxCount >> 'in' argument. Should we have it here as well? > > We could do that. The question is whether an AT is ever going to want to > retrieve anything other than one or all hyperlinks. I can only come up with > use cases for one or all. > > > Jamie > > -- > James Teh > Director, NV Access Limited > Email: ja...@nvaccess.org > Web site: http://www.nvaccess.org/ > Phone: +61 7 5667 8372 > ___ > Accessibility-ia2 mailing list > Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2 ___ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 1.3 ready for review
On 10/10/2012 5:07 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote: It seems [introducing actions for editable text operations] doesn't answer why we can't turn out the whole IAccessibleEditableText interface into actions. I agree and tend to think this is the way forward. Btw, I would prefer doAction taking a BSTR rather than negative constant. Otherwise we should standardize all possible actions and we don't leave a room for the server to introduce non-standard actions. This requires a new method (and thus a new interface), which was the main reason for avoiding it. However, I'm not really against this. Using strings is a touch more expensive, but it's negligible and more extensible. 6) IAccessibleHypertext2::hyperlinks. Just to make sure: we decided to go with array instead EnumVariant? Do AT want to get all items at once even if the document is big and has many links? It seems we didn't go with EnumVariant at all but we added maxCount 'in' argument. Should we have it here as well? We could do that. The question is whether an AT is ever going to want to retrieve anything other than one or all hyperlinks. I can only come up with use cases for one or all. Jamie -- James Teh Director, NV Access Limited Email: ja...@nvaccess.org Web site: http://www.nvaccess.org/ Phone: +61 7 5667 8372 ___ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 1.3 ready for review
Hi, Jamie. Answering inline. >> 5) "Document that copyText, cutText, and pasteText are deprecated." >> Can you please refresh me on it? The reason specified is "This >> function is available via the application's GUI." but it seems it can >> be applied to the whole IAccessibleEditableText interface. > > I believe there was some talk a while ago about making these all actions > which can be triggered using the standard action mechanism. This would > require a way to perform an action given a constant. It is why the idea of > using negative action indices came up. It seems it doesn't answer why we can't turn out the whole IAccessibleEditableText interface into actions. Btw, I would prefer doAction taking a BSTR rather than negative constant. Otherwise we should standardize all possible actions and we don't leave a room for the server to introduce non-standard actions. >> 6) IAccessibleHypertext2::hyperlinks. Just to make sure: we decided to >> go with array instead EnumVariant? Do AT want to get all items at once >> even if the document is big and has many links? It seems we didn't go with EnumVariant at all but we added maxCount 'in' argument. Should we have it here as well? >> 7) IA2_RELATION_GROUPING_OBJECT_FOR: "This object is a grouping object >> for the target object." - it'd be nice to give a hint for >> implementers. After a time I don't really remember what is it about :) > > I guess a grouping object/container would expose this relation referring to > all objects it contains. Is this really useful? It'd be nice to have examples. Does it applicable to HTML fieldset and HTML form? Should it include the element connected by node_child_of relation if the element is not a descendant? Thank you. Alex. On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:39 PM, James Teh wrote: > On 24/09/2012 2:52 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote: >> >> 5) "Document that copyText, cutText, and pasteText are deprecated." >> Can you please refresh me on it? The reason specified is "This >> function is available via the application's GUI." but it seems it can >> be applied to the whole IAccessibleEditableText interface. > > I believe there was some talk a while ago about making these all actions > which can be triggered using the standard action mechanism. This would > require a way to perform an action given a constant. It is why the idea of > using negative action indices came up. > > >> 6) IAccessibleHypertext2::hyperlinks. Just to make sure: we decided to >> go with array instead EnumVariant? Do AT want to get all items at once >> even if the document is big and has many links? > > Isn't that the whole point of this method? Otherwise, wouldn't > IAccessibleHypertext::hyperlink be enough? Maybe I'm missing something... > > >> 7) IA2_RELATION_GROUPING_OBJECT_FOR: "This object is a grouping object >> for the target object." - it'd be nice to give a hint for >> implementers. After a time I don't really remember what is it about :) > > I guess a grouping object/container would expose this relation referring to > all objects it contains. Is this really useful? > > >> 9) Description for IA2_RELATION_POPUP_INITIATOR_FOR doesn't make >> things really clear for implementers too. > > Yeah; I have no idea what this is for. :) > >> Btw, the used string is >> "popInitiatorFor", > > Looks like a typo to me. > > Thanks, > Jamie > > > -- > James Teh > Director, NV Access Limited > Email: ja...@nvaccess.org > Web site: http://www.nvaccess.org/ > Phone: +61 7 5667 8372 > ___ > Accessibility-ia2 mailing list > Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2 ___ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
