[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. inODF drawings
Thank you Peter. response below.
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist
Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review Board
blog: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=441
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.", Frost
Peter Korn <Peter.Korn@Sun.COM> wrote on 03/30/2006 07:34:13 PM:
> 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?
1. I would add that Malte has the action item to get this back to the group.
> 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?
2. I thought we agreed to only use <svg:title> on drawing object. I was the only
hold out and agreed that this would be fine on the call. Does anyone have an issue with
only using <svg:title> on drawing primitives(lines, shapes, etc.)?
> 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?
>
3. Since we are discussing this, if caption is going to be used to replace the short
name of the drawing object and <svg:title> title would normally be used to to set the short
name of the drawing object it does not make sense to add a relationship for the same thing.
Furthermore, relationship interfaces are much more compute intensive than getting/getting the name of
an AccessibleObject.
> 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]