I should point out that we are flexible on using header tables versus relations. Both have distinct advantages. The main thing I would like to see is that there be one way to do headers, as opposed to multiple ways. Thanks, RG
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andres Gonzalez Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:58 PM To: [email protected]; IA2 List Subject: Re: [Accessibility-ia2]rowHeader/columnHeader implementationproposal > Rob has indicated that at least JAWS would prefer to deal with header tables. If this a roadblock for Adobe? No, it is not a roadblock for us. > Is the creation of header tables awkward enough and the use of relations appealing enough that we should consider deprecating IATable::rowHeader and columnHeader? I see these as two separate issues. 1. specialized methods in the interface to retrieve column/row headers vs. using the relation mechanism. 2. in the specialized method variant, do we want to return a table header or simply an ordered array. I was proposing to keep specialized methods in the interface, but that they would return an ordered array and not a table object as they do in the current specs. Best regards, --Andres. _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pete Brunet Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:33 PM To: IA2 List Subject: Re: [Accessibility-ia2] rowHeader/columnHeader implementationproposal Andres, To determine the reason we'd have to go back to the discussions that took place when the Java a11y API was developed. Rob has indicated that at least JAWS would prefer to deal with header tables. If this a roadblock for Adobe? Is the creation of header tables awkward enough and the use of relations appealing enough that we should consider deprecating IATable::rowHeader and columnHeader? -- Pete Brunet a11ysoft - Accessibility Architecture and Development (512) 238-6967 pete @ a11ysoft.com http://www.a11ysoft.com/about/ http://www.linkedin.com/in/petebrunet Ionosphere: WS4G Andres Gonzalez wrote: I very much second James's observation about the awkwardness of having to return a table object as the row or column header for a cell. Was there a reason behind that decision? Is it too late to reconsider an amendment? (smile) Best regards, --Andres. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James Teh Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:10 PM To: IAccessible2 mailing list Subject: Re: [Accessibility-ia2] rowHeader/columnHeader implementationproposal On 29/05/2009 9:58 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote: 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 James, I think you just need to get a role of related accessibles. Do I miss something? Nope, I did. Sorry. I forgot there were roles for row header and column header. My concern is thus invalid. :) -- 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
_______________________________________________ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
