a small change to make things clearer? "However, in case of selection, when the user selects backwards (e.g. pressing shift+left arrow in a text field), the start of the range is the active point, as the user moves this to manipulate the selection."
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:02 PM, James Teh <ja...@nvaccess.org> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > The interface/method looks fine. Just one comment on the documentation: > > + * One of the range points is an anchor, a start of the range, and > another one > + * is a range end, which typically coincides with the user focus. > > > I think we need to be careful about the words "start" and "end" here. In > the usual case, anchor will be less than active. However, if the user is > selecting backwards, active will be less than anchor. Even if active < > anchor, I still see the lesser number as being the "start" of the "range". > This is one of the reasons I preferred start, end and a boolean for the > anchor/active determination, though I realise that seems like a pointless > waste of bytes. > > Maybe we could say something like: > > The "anchor" is one point of the range and typically remains constant. The > other point is the "active" point, which typically corresponds to the > user's focus or point of interest. The user moves the active point to > expand or collapse the range. In most cases, anchor is the start of the > range and active is the end. However, when selecting backwards (e.g. > pressing shift+left arrow in a text field), the start of the range is the > active point, as the user moves this to manipulate the selection. > > > The other problem is that unless you're dealing with something like > selection, the terms anchor and active don't make a huge amount of sense, > since neither point is the "anchor". I realise that selection is the > primary use case, but it seems like this range struct is trying to be more > generic than this. > we could name them start and end then, and document that in case of selection 'start' is a selection anchor, 'end' is a active selection boundary. > > Jamie > > On 4/12/2015 10:57 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote: > > Jamie, Andres, all could you please to take a look at the proposal and > comment it out here? > Thanks! > Alex. > > [1] > http://git.linuxfoundation.org/?p=a11y/ia2.git;a=commitdiff;h=85deaf1a1514f0c5e6a59e8c9b6606abfb6e6813 > > > -- > James Teh > Executive Director, NV Access Limited > Ph +61 7 3149 3306www.nvaccess.org > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess > Twitter: @NVAccess > SIP: ja...@nvaccess.org > >
_______________________________________________ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
