James, I think you just need to get a role of related accessibles. Do I miss something?
Alex. On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:06 AM, James Teh <[email protected]> wrote: > On 29/05/2009 12:40 AM, Rob Gallo wrote: >> I actually don't like the idea of described by relations for table headers. >> It's non-standard, and it blurs the line between the table interface and >> relations. In my mind, they have separate purposes. > I'd argue that it does have some precedent in standards; consider, for > example, the way you can link a cell with its headers using the headers > attribute in HTML. Relations are designed to specify that two objects > are related in some way. I'd argue that table cells and their header > cells are a good candidate for this; they are two objects that are > "related". > > I find the table rowHeader/columnHeader interface to be somewhat clunky > at best. It would be far nicer if it just returned an ordered array of > row or header cells for the requested cell, rather than having to return > a virtual table. > > Having said this, it just occurred to me that using described by > relations is problematic in that you can't determine what is a column > header and what is a row header without querying the row and column > coordinates for the header cell, which is pretty ugly. Having to do this > would make this method equivalently clunky. This could be worked around > by creating separate relations for column header and row header. > However, given the shortcomings of IAccessibleRelation, this is perhaps > not too worthwhile. > > -- > James Teh > Email/MSN Messenger/Jabber: [email protected] > Web site: http://www.jantrid.net/ > _______________________________________________ > Accessibility-ia2 mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2 > _______________________________________________ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
