On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:25 PM, James Teh <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 30/10/2015 3:49 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote: > > - The nodes in the IA@_Range structure may be generic >> IAccessibles and not necessarily IAccessibleText. That would cover the case >> of a composite image with an array of image children that can be selected >> individually. >> > An edge case is a text document, but where the selection start or end is a > graphic. In that case, I think the returned object should actually be the > parent and the offset should be the relevant offset of the embedded object. > Otherwise, things get confusing for text. > I'm not sure I follow why this is an edge case and where the problem is, because if a document has an image as a child, and the document implements text interface, then the returned object should be the document and offset should be the text offset for embedded character for the image accessible. > > * if returned accessible is generic IAccessible then the integer is child > index. The point is *before* a referred child. > > I don't quite follow what you mean by *before* the child. So, for the > second child, would the offset be 1? > opposite :) if the offset is 1 then the selection is right before the second child, if the offset is 2 then selection is right after the second child and right before a third child. > > I'm actually wondering whether, in this case, the returned object should > just be the relevant child; i.e. startOffset and endOffset are just > irrelevant. > say, you have an object with number of children, and the selection contains the last child only, i.e it starts before the child and ends after it. How would you describe the selection having no start/endOffsets? > I realise this makes things different to text, but text is a bit different > in that you generally want to expand text to word, line, etc., whereas for > non-text cases, you're more interested in just getting at the objects. > Remember, the objects might not be siblings; e.g. in a tree view. > tree view shouldn't be different, since (accessible, offset) pairs basically describe points in the tree. > > >> >> - In some cases it would be good to specify which limit of the >> range is the anchor and which the active end. We could add that to the >> structure as an additional member, or simply document the convention that >> start = anchor and end = active. If we go with the latter, then start does >> not have to be <= end in the Accessible order. >> > This would certainly be useful, particularly for braille. I have a slight > preference for a boolean or similar to specify which end is active/anchor. > Alternatively, we could rename start and end to anchor and active. > > > Jamie > > -- > James Teh > Executive Director, NV Access Limited > Ph +61 7 3149 3306www.nvaccess.org > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess > Twitter: @NVAccess > SIP: [email protected] > >
_______________________________________________ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
