Re: [office-accessibility] Statement of the issue & proposal forname/description/etc. in ODF drawings

[Peter Korn <Peter.Korn@Sun.COM>]

Hi Rich,
>
> Thank you Peter. response below.
>
> 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.)?
>
OK.  If so, then this issue is settled (though it isn't clear yet 
whether we use <svg:title> or re-use <name> - that's waiting on the 
answer to item #1 (Malte's action).
>
>
> >  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.
>
I agree that following relations takes more cycles.  However, it isn't 
clear to me whether that is worth what we might loose in terms of 
information.  I think this is still TBD.


Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.