Ok. It sounds nobody is against IEnumVariant approach.
Pete, could you please file a proposal combining #1.1 and #3 to get
it reviewed?
Thank you.
Alex.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, James Teh wrote:
> On 15/04/2010 8:36 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
>> Jamie, how many targets should AT requ
On 15/04/2010 8:36 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
> Jamie, how many targets should AT request to get all of them from
> IEnumVariant?
I think we will probably still need to have a getRelationCount or
similar which accepts an optional relation type.
Jamie
--
James Teh
Vice President
NV Access Inc,
Rob, are you happy with IEnumVariant to fetch relation targets?
Jamie, how many targets should AT request to get all of them from IEnumVariant?
If everybody is ok with IEnumVariant then let's follow #3.
Thank you.
Alex.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:55 AM, James Teh wrote:
> On 26/02/2010 7:43 AM
On 26/02/2010 7:43 AM, Pete Brunet wrote:
> #2 would provide a performance advantage for out of process because it
> eliminates additional cross process calls when the full set of targets
> is required.
IEnumVariant can do this as well. The first parameter to
IEnumVariant::next specifies the numbe
Please let me know your preference.
1) Similar in style to other IA2 interfaces
HRESULT nRelationTargets ([in] BSTR relationType, [out, retval] long
*nTargets)
Returns the number of targets for the specified relation type.
HRESULT relationTarget ([in] BSTR relationType, [in] long index, [ou
I think I'm fine with IEnumVariant, however IEnumVariant seems a bit
unusual for IA2 interfaces.
Alex.
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 12:19 PM, James Teh wrote:
> On 20/02/2010 6:37 AM, Pete Brunet wrote:
>> 1) Relations
>> - add the following:
>> - nRelationTargets // if only the first one is needed
On 20/02/2010 6:37 AM, Pete Brunet wrote:
> 1) Relations
> - add the following:
> - nRelationTargets // if only the first one is needed don't call this so
> the server doesn't have to calculate it
> - relationTarget([in] index, [out] IUnknown) // if the index is bad (or
> index==0 and there are no
hem if you like.
Thanks,
RG
_
From: accessibility-ia2-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
[mailto:accessibility-ia2-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org] On Behalf Of
Pete Brunet
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 3:37 PM
Cc: 'IA2 List'
Subject: Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Relations
ith older
> versions of Jaws.
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> RG
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: accessibility-ia2-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> [mailto:accessibility-ia2-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org] On Behalf Of
> Alexander Surkov
> Sent: Wednesda
uxfoundation.org] On Behalf Of
Alexander Surkov
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 4:53 AM
To: Pete Brunet
Cc: IA2 List
Subject: Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Relations
Hi. Pete.
I think I'm fine with your suggestion.
1) replace IAccessible2 by new interface
2) change the relation methods
3)
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 4:53 AM
To: Pete Brunet
Cc: IA2 List
Subject: Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Relations
Hi. Pete.
I think I'm fine with your suggestion.
1) replace IAccessible2 by new interface
2) change the relation methods
3) change attribute methods
However we could retu
Hi. Pete.
I think I'm fine with your suggestion.
1) replace IAccessible2 by new interface
2) change the relation methods
3) change attribute methods
However we could return an accessible relation object if we want to
save localizing stuffs and an ability for lazy calculation of relation
targets
To:
> Pete Brunet
> Cc:
> IA2 List
> Date: 26/10/2009 06:25 AM Subject: Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Relations
> Sent by: accessibility-ia2-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> --
>
>
>
> Hello.
>
> If AT needs IAccessibleRelation::loca
zed or not.
Carolyn
From:
Alexander Surkov
To:
Pete Brunet
Cc:
IA2 List
Date:
26/10/2009 06:25 AM
Subject:
Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Relations
Sent by:
accessibility-ia2-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Hello.
If AT needs IAccessibleRelation::localizedRelationType (however it's
not implemented
Hello.
If AT needs IAccessibleRelation::localizedRelationType (however it's
not implemented in Firefox for example and no idea what AT expects
actually) then we can't drop IAccessibleRelation and introduce
"relationTargets ([in] type, [out] array of IUnknowns)", but instead
it should be "relationT
Here is a summary of yesterday's discussions regarding relations
Pete
- replace IA2 with IA2_2
- remove: nRelations, relations, relation
- add: relation ([in] type, [out] IARelation)
Carolyn
- keep IAccessible2, deprecating nRelations, relations, relation
- add IARelationships with 2 methods,
Hi.
Thinking from performance point of view and assuming AT don't need all
relations always I like more original proposal because it allows to
calculate relations lazily. However it could require to extend
IAccessibleRelation by method "boolean GetNextTarget(IAccessible
**aTarget)" or similarly. S
On 23/10/2009 1:03 AM, Carolyn MacLeod wrote:
> I think deprecating IAccessible2 would be really confusing to everyone,
> no matter what the new interface's name is.
Agreed, although there may be sufficient justification; ee below.
> Perhaps something like this might be a bit less wild?
> - deprec
Hi,
On 23/10/2009 1:44 AM, Rob Gallo wrote:
> You should keep in mind that an object may have multiple relations of a
> given type. There is one example where an edit control has three label
> relations:...
The proposed method still returns an IAccessibleRelation interface.
IAccessibleRelation do
ered a best practice for the
> client to allocate and free the arrays." (Why is that, anyhow?)
>
> Carolyn
>
>
>
> From: Carolyn MacLeod/Ottawa/i...@ibmca
> To: p...@a11ysoft.com
> Cc: accessibility-ia2-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org, IA2 List
>
g, IA2 List
Date:
22/10/2009 11:07 AM
Subject:
Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Relations
Sent by:
accessibility-ia2-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
I was just teasing when I mentioned IAccessible3...
I think deprecating IAccessible2 would be really confusing to everyone, no
matter what the new inter
makes the control read quite nicely.
Thanks,
RG
_
From: accessibility-ia2-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
[mailto:accessibility-ia2-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org] On Behalf Of
Pete Brunet
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:27 AM
To: IA2 List
Subject: [Accessibility-ia2] Relati
runet
To:
IA2 List
Date:
22/10/2009 10:27 AM
Subject:
[Accessibility-ia2] Relations
Sent by:
accessibility-ia2-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Over the last year or so there have been several posts pointing out the
shortcomings of IA2::relation(s). I think this is serious enough that I
Over the last year or so there have been several posts pointing out the
shortcomings of IA2::relation(s). I think this is serious enough that
I'd like to get this fixed at some convenient point. We'd have to
deprecate IAccessible2 and add IAccessible22 (or IAccessible2_2 if you'd
prefer).
Pleas
24 matches
Mail list logo
