https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149013
--- Comment #14 from Christophe Strobbe <[email protected]> --- (In reply to sdc.blanco from comment #13) > (In reply to Christophe Strobbe from comment #12) > > 2. Sighted authors might start thinking that those attributes are intended > > for tooltips and begin use them for additional information instead of text > > alternatives. > IIUC, at present LO does not use those fields when hovering the mouse over > non-text objects. Michael was just pointing out that this possibility might > be attractive to some. > > If this capability were added, then could we address your concern by using > the "help" page -- by pointing out that if this feature is being used to > create "accessible" documents, then "Text Alternative" should only be used > to describe the object. Regarding 'if this feature is being used to > create "accessible" documents': It should *only* be used for accessibility and for nothing else. Using it for tooltips would constitute abuse of the feature. (Accessibility is a requirement, not a favour done to people with disabilities.) > This is an example of my point at the end of comment 10, > (a) do not tell the user what to do, but > (b) give adequate information so that they can make an informed decision > about how to use the feature. Regarding the suggestion: 'Whether the Description tag is used by other software depends on the software's implementation.' This does not seem very helpful. First, "other software" is very vague. Second, to the reader of the documentation, this casts doubt on the usefulness of "Description", whereas I want it to be used when accessibility considerations require it. > Final question: > > Assistive technologies, such as screen readers used by blind people, should > > announce the presence of a long description to the user > But how can these technologies know that a "long description" is present? > Doesn't it depend on LO exporting this information to an HTML or PDF tag (or > internally to its own documents if this capability is added) in a form that > would likely to be recognized by these technologies? > > I ask because the online help has to document what happens, not what > "should" happen. The usefulness of a long description in an ODF file does not depend on first exporting it to HTML or PDF. Assistive technologies interact with other software through Accessibility APIs. One such API is IAccessible2, which was part of IBM's donation to OpenOffice.org a few years ago (and from there inherited by LibreOffice). (See https://www.zdnet.com/article/ibm-throws-its-source-code-and-support-behind-openoffice/ ) IAccessible2 is a platform-independent Accessibility API (unlike Gnome's ATK/AT-SPI, MS Windows's UI Automation and Apple's accessibility APIs). The NVDA issue I referenced in my previous comment (see https://github.com/nvaccess/nvda/issues/809 ) contains a link to a commit at https://github.com/nvaccess/nvda/commit/0ac840a8a14ebe18f25b7392d13077b8391f97e8 that uses IAccessible2 to query the browser for the presence of a long description. More specifically, it uses the IAccessibleAction Interface documented at https://accessibility.linuxfoundation.org/a11yspecs/ia2/docs/html/interface_i_accessible_action.html . I imagine LibreOffice would do something similar. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
