OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-accessibility message

[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]