From The Linux Foundation
Revision as of 01:31, 16 December 2008 by Ptbrunet (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ←Older revision | view current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

IAccessible2 SIG Conference Call Minutes 2008/12/02

  1. Regrets: none
  2. Attendees: Pete Brunet, Mick Curran, Jamie Teh, Mike Squillace, Janina Sajka
  3. Prior meeting minutes - approved
  4. Report from Janina, Open A11y chair
    • The conversations with MS attorneys continues regarding interop between the LF and the AIA. There were supposed to be meetings on Nov 12 and/or Dec 5. Check back during the next meeting for status regarding those. During the prior meeting Janina and Karen Copenhaver met with Microsoft attorneys. In the short term Microsoft is asking for the 2 methods supporting child IDs. In the long term the discussion need to address joint interaction between the LF and Microsoft. Microsoft thought their patent policy via the UIA Community Promise was more open than GPL3/LGPL3.

      LF wants clarification of Microsoft wants with respect to any requests specific to IA2. For the child ID support, they just want copyright on the 2 new methods. Karen asked for draft language for the copyright so the LF doesn't have to interpret the Microsoft request.

    • Janina doesn't know when board will take up IA2
  5. AccProbe inspect tool - Mike Squillace
    • No decision yet if there would be a request to LF to move AccProbe into the Open A11y group.
    • Accprobe is important to NVDA for reporting bugs to Mozilla and it's also useful to check for in proc vs out of proc behavior.
  6. Text attributes
    • For text-position, NVDA relies on exposing the value "baseline" when the offset is 0.
  7. IARevisionText
    1. Handling revisions to non-text objects:
      • It was felt that defining the revisions interface will take more work and that we should attempt to work toward something that will work for a wide range of apps, e.g. word processing documents and spreadsheets.
      • Action item: Pete to ask Malte and Larry if Open Office and UIA, respectively, are reporting rev info for non-text objects.
    2. How are comment only revisions handled?
      • Malte Timmerman doesn't think this is a feature of OpenOffice. Is there any request for this from the IA2 community?
      • JT: This seems like a good use of a text attribute
    3. Do we need more kinds of format changes besides insertion, deletion, and format change?
      • Malte wasn't supportive of this.
      • JT: Agree but spreadsheet changes need to be handled, e.g. inserting/deleting columns/rows/sheets.
    4. Is more granularity needed for format changes, i.e. is it enough to just say there was a format change or should the kind of format change be indicated?
      • Malte said that as far as he knows this was discussed and the decision was to keep it at the current level of granularity. Is there any request for this from the IA2 community?
      • MC: We need to find out what apps are doing.
      • JT: I can't see any need for more info. In the worst case the user could do a diff.
    5. What use cases are needed?
      • OOo and Symphony are adequate for now.
    6. getSegmentAtOffset (singular) needs to be getSegmentsAtOffset (plural) because unlike links there could be overlapping insertions and deletions.
      • From Oliver-Rainer Wittmann at Sun: In OOo Writer there are no overlapping revisions/change trackings. The OOo Writer breaks a certain change tracking into corresponding pieces, if the user creates overlapping revisions/change trackings. Thus, revisions/change trackings are properly nested in OOo Writer. But nevertheless, there can be several change trackings at a certain cursor position. Thus, the proposed change is reasonable.
      • MC: How would a sighted person see multiple revisions? If this isn't possible IA2 might not need to support multiple segments.
  8. Flows from / Flows to
    • From MC earlier via email: We need a way to ask the app where the caret would go if it were to fall off the end of a particular object. It's not just related to paragraphs, but to any object where the caret can move.

      In the given situation of paragraph table paragraph, it depends on what the app does with the caret. if you are on the last position of the first paragraph and you press right arrow or down arrow, does the caret move to the first cell in the table? if so, then that should be the relation: first paragraph flows to first cell, first cell flows from first paragraph. The same as the last cell in the table flows to second paragraph, second paragraph flows from last cell in table. Also of course I would expect that the flows to/from relation exists on all the table cells.

      When I say table cell though, I really do mean the deepest object in that table cell that has the caret.

      So really, the question is: is the flowsTo/flowsFrom relation really to show where the caret moves? If so this is good, and this is what we would wish to happen. But if flowsTo/flowsFrom was created for a different purpose, then we perhaps should make some new relations specific to the caret.

      At the end of the day, screen readers such as NVDA need a way to ask any given object, for the next or previous object that would contain the caret, if it were to move there directly from this object.