Rich, To me "has" feels more like a state rather than a relation so
IA2_RELATION_POPUP_INITIATOR_FOR seems to fit better.
I see that I also missed the reciprocal of IA2_RELATION_MEMBER_OF.
Should we add IA2_RELATION_GROUPING_OBJECT_FOR?
BTW, We should be careful to not add useless relations, i.e. I don't
want to add any for the sake of completeness if they are not useful so
we might not even need these two that I have proposed, i.e.
IA2_RELATION_POPUP_INITIATOR_FOR
IA2_RELATION_GROUPING_OBJECT_FOR
Having said that there might be some relations that should even be
removed. Here is the current list:
IA2_RELATION_CONTROLLED_BY
IA2_RELATION_CONTROLLER_FOR
IA2_RELATION_DESCRIBED_BY
IA2_RELATION_DESCRIPTION_FOR
IA2_RELATION_EMBEDDED_BY
IA2_RELATION_EMBEDS
IA2_RELATION_FLOWS_FROM
IA2_RELATION_FLOWS_TO
IA2_RELATION_LABEL_FOR
IA2_RELATION_LABELED_BY
IA2_RELATION_LABELLED_BY
IA2_RELATION_PARENT_WINDOW_OF
IA2_RELATION_SUBWINDOW_OF
IA2_RELATION_MEMBER_OF
IA2_RELATION_GROUPING_OBJECT_FOR (possible addition)
IA2_RELATION_NODE_CHILD_OF
IA1_RELATION_NODE_PARENT_OF (requested by Mozilla)
IA2_RELATION_POPUP_FOR
IA2_RELATION_POPUP_INITIATOR_FOR (possible addition)
Pete
---
Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
Nope. controller for indicates that an object controls another
elsewhere in the application. This was derived from the work we did
with Sun on Java where we had a problem in the SwingSet application.
Here we had a series of checkboxes that controlled the contents of a
listbox (types of foods). We had no way of showing the relationship so
we created controller for.
for pop-up we had a has popup for aria that had an IA2 relationship
corresponding to it. Wouldn't you have an IA2_RELATION_HAS_POPUP?
Rich
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist
 David Bolter
---02/25/2010 02:56:41 PM---I wonder if this is semantically captured
by IA2_RELATION_CONTROLLER_FOR?
I wonder if this is semantically captured by
IA2_RELATION_CONTROLLER_FOR?
Not sure there is any harm to distinguishing POPUP_INITIATOR_FOR though
(or maybe POPPER_FOR).
cheers,
D
On 25/02/10 9:23 AM, Pete Brunet wrote:
> I can add IA2_RELATION_NODE_PARENT_OF.
>
> I just checked the list of relations and there is one other one
that
> doesn't have a complement, i.e. IA2_RELATION_POPUP_FOR which is
defined as:
> This object is a transient component related to the target
object.
> When this object is activated the target object doesn't loose
focus.
> Is there any need for its complement, e.g. something like
> IA2_RELATION_POPUP_INITIATOR_FOR?
>
> Pete
> ---
> James Teh wrote:
>
>> On 10/11/2009 3:28 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
>>
>>> Joanmarie requested us to implement new
RELATION_NODE_PARENT_OF in
>>> Firefox for ATK - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=527461.
>>> This relation is reciprocal relation to NODE_CHILD_OF. I
wonder if AT
>>> using IA2 are interested to have this relation as well. On
the another
>>> hand new relation will keep IA2 and ATK more closely what
is good in
>>> general.
>>>
>> While NVDA doesn't really have a use for this at present, I
think it
>> makes sense for the sake of symmetry if nothing else.
>>
>> Jamie
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
