[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office-accessibility] Statement of the issue & proposal for name/description/etc. in ODF drawings
Thanks Peter. Well described with detail. I'm going to reserve my recommendation after reviewing discussion among the members. - Mike Mike Paciello TPG +1 603.882.4122 ext 103 -----Original Message----- From: Peter Korn [mailto:Peter.Korn@Sun.COM] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 8:34 PM To: office-accessibility@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [office-accessibility] Statement of the issue & proposal for name/description/etc. in ODF drawings Greetings, Here is the promised write-up of the issue of names, descriptions, captions, titles, etc. in drawing objects... Requirements: ------------ 1. Every drawing object should have a short name, persisted in XML, that can be presented to users. This short 'name field' should only be filled out by authors (and not automatically filled in, e.g. "line 1", "line 2"). 2. Every "meaningful" drawing object should have a 'description field', persisted in XML, that can be presented to users. 3. Authors should be able to link text captions with the graphic object(s) they are associated with (e.g. the text "Tiger from the Amazon River Basin" that might be sitting underneath an image of a tiger). Questions we need to resolve: ---------------------------- 1. How is the existing 'name attribute' in ODF drawing elements used in ODF, ODF apps? Is it used by macros, etc., such that we can't have it be null by default, and only have contents when explicitly assigned by users? 2. Do we need a 'description field' on every drawing primitive (e.g. line, rectangle, oval) that makes up a more complex drawing (e.g. a tiger's paw, or the entire tiger), or just on groups of drawing primitives? 3. If we have a text caption, should it automatically be used as either the 'name field' or 'description field' as persisted in the XML ODF file, or should the job of presenting that caption be left to the policy of the assistive technology? Group proposal (and the assumed answers to the unresolved questions this proposal is assuming): --------------------- 1. [assuming the existing 'name attribute' in ODF *is* used & needed for other things] we introduce svg:title on *all* drawing objects & drawing groups, and map that to ATK_NAME and MSAA short name. [assuming the existing 'name attribute' is *not* used for anything else] that we re-purpose 'name', advise ODF apps to leave it blank by default, and map that to ATK_NAME and MSAA short name. [A third alternative: instead of introducing svg:title, we re-purpose 'name', and then have ODF apps use the default XML 'id' attribute for referencing drawing objects & groupings] 2. we introduce svg:desc, and [assuming that we agree we don't need it on primitives] define it as applying to drawing groups only 3. we introduce a "described by" relation in the XML markup, which links caption text objects to the drawing group that they caption (do we allow captions also on drawing primitives?) Peter's opinion/suggestion: -------------------------- 1. Go with the third alternative: re-purpose 'name' for a user 'name field', and have ODF apps use the XML 'id' attribute for references. We'd use this for the "described by" relation anyway. Visual user presentation of un-named objects would programatically generate a user-presentation of an unnamed drawing object by concatenating the object type with the id (e.g. "line 3"). 2. Put svg:desc only on groupings, not on individual drawing primitives 3. Allow the AT to decide how to present "described by" relations/captions; don't formally replace the XML 'name field' or 'svg:desc' field with their contents. Peter Korn Accessibility Architect, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]