Re: [office-accessibility] proposal

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

On 16/03/06, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:

>  > They are semantically identical if semantics are taken from the svg
>  > world Rich.
>  > We gain no benefit from two such similar elements.
>  > A longdesc without structure is IMHO of little added value.
>  > The Caption element does more in terms of svg:title.
>  Title would be a short name for an object -like caption.
Caption fits that need without introducing another element,
more typing, more for the user to use or ignore.

> That said,
>  Caption is a rectangular drawing object in your presentation
Not to a photon free user.
 which has a
> different
>  purpose in that it is also rendered on the screen and as an author I might
> not want that:
So you'd be prepared to type in both title and caption?

If so, I think you are an exception Rich.

>
>  The element represents a rectangular drawing shape with an additional set
> of lines. It can be used as a description for a fixed point inside a
> drawing.
I don't recognise any of that xml Rich.
In writer, insert an svg line or audio file or image,
right click, add caption, save, unzip and look for the caption
text. Nothing like what you included.
I guess we are talking at cross purposes here?


Change of subject!
I made a plea for svg:g element use.


>  Groups definitely help and I am not saying not to use groups.
I can't, today, in ODF.

But groups
> can be formed
>  and then connected to other objects. In this instance we would want the
> group (IMO) to
>  hide all the internal connections, etc. and act as a single drawing object
> which would be
>  connected and become part of the navigation sequence.

Clarification please. Why do you want connectors?
To present a navigation sequence to an eyes free user?
In svg you can navigate between groups, lines, any xml element.
You can't hide internal elements.


>
>  > Take the tiger on the SVG website. What value would connectors add there?
>  > Thousands of lines, hundreds of connectors. Too much work for too
>  > little reward IMHO
>  >
>  I think we are in violent agreement. The tiger would be a group and all
> connections within would be hidden as a result of the grouping.

There are no connections, unless the author generates them?
A machine is unlikely to be able to do it?


>  In ODP we have connectors and when used we want to connect the objects
> together and show the associations.
I've never seen one in the XML I've generated, nor in the SVG I've generated
outside of ODF.



Here
>  is an example I am playing with:
>
>  (See attached file: presentationtest.odp)

Are you talking about the presentation tool?
I'm referring to the svg within a vector drawing within the write package.
We should declare which package we are talking about, since
there seems little shared use of SVG.


>
>
>  Finally, groups can be ungrouped by the author for editing purposes and in
> these cases we have a problem and need
>  connectors again.

OK. Grouping. In SVG a group is a containing element. It is not
the same animal as a grouping tool in most drawing tools.

I guess you are talking about the latter, me about the former Rich?

regards


--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk