Re: [g-a-devel] Keeping/removing AccessibleText get by Sentence [Fwd: Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Suggest remove IA2_TEXT_BOUNDARY_SENTENCE]

[Malte Timmermann <Malte Timmermann Sun COM>]

My comments on this:

Even with OOo being a word processor application, we have the sentence
detection (or guessing) problem Aaron is describing below. So if a word
processor can't handle that, how could text edit, label, ...?
Of course OOo should probably have more knowledge in this area than some
AT, but if AT does it, it helps all ATK implementations, and it's done
consistently.

I don't agree with Bills comment about inefficiency when implemented by AT.
AT doesn't have to get by line/words/etc, but get get the full
accessible text and work on that directly.

Malte.




Aaron Leventhal wrote, On 01/22/07 15:58:
> Bill,
>
> A smart sentence divider will not stop at Mr.
>
> It doesn't need to be fast, it only needs to keep up with the reader.
>
> - Aaron
>
> Bill Haneman wrote:
>   
>> Aaron Leventhal wrote:
>>     
>>> I think SENTENCE support should be removed, and the rest kept. The 
>>> rest are usually already implemented in some form by the app.
>>>
>>> Sentence can be implemented by the AT if it really needs it.
>>>       
>> I think this would be inefficient, since one never knows how many 
>> lines/words/etc. are required before a sentence-ending mark is 
>> encountered.
>>     
>>> I don't want to have to deal with the i18n issues here. 
>>>       
>> I think they are not so difficult, except for languages where they are 
>> impossible.  For the latter case, we need to define what the API 
>> returns (i.e. what do we return if the locale doesn't really support 
>> sentence end marks).
>>     
>>> Also the AT needs consistency and every app will do this differently.
>>>       
>> Really?  I don't see a lot of inconsistency in the current SENTENCE 
>> support - for English, we have a few well-defined sentence end 
>> markers: ".!?", and SENTENCE blocks don't span 'paragraphs'.  Why is 
>> it any harder for the app than for the AT?
>>
>> Bill
>>     
>>> - Aaron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill Haneman wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Peter Korn wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>         
>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition to the discussion about state deprecations, I'd like to 
>>>>> give another kick to the apple cart - keeping/removing some of the 
>>>>> text range constants.  I put the letter/word/line/sentence stuff in 
>>>>> in the first place, thinking it'd be useful for several AT use 
>>>>> cases and trusting that the Java parsing support for those chunks 
>>>>> would do the right thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alas, as Harald points out supporting this generally (especially 
>>>>> sentence) is a right pain.  And I have a feeling that screen 
>>>>> readers aren't using this API.  So, while we are in a deprecating 
>>>>> mood, perhaps we should deprecate this too?
>>>>>     
>>>>>           
>>>> I am not in favor of this removal.  It's actually much easier to 
>>>> implement in most cases than "LINE", and we need to keep the old 
>>>> ones around for back-compat guarantees anyhow.
>>>>
>>>> I think a good case can be made for retaining this for 'talking 
>>>> book', page-reading, and similar use cases (i.e. meta clipboard apps 
>>>> that cuts one sentence, etc.)
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>  
>>>>         
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter Korn
>>>>> Accessibility Architect,
>>>>> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject:
>>>>> Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Suggest remove IA2_TEXT_BOUNDARY_SENTENCE
>>>>> From:
>>>>> Harald Fernengel <harald trolltech com>
>>>>> Date:
>>>>> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:24:35 +0100
>>>>> To:
>>>>> accessibility-ia2 lists freestandards org
>>>>>
>>>>> To:
>>>>> accessibility-ia2 lists freestandards org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday 18 January 2007 21:30, Aaron Leventhal wrote:
>>>>>     
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Application internals almost never have support for this, and 
>>>>>> developers
>>>>>> will have to do lots of extra work to support it. Very difficult to
>>>>>> implement given I18N.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe this is something the AT wants to have the app 
>>>>>> support
>>>>>> for just accessibility, because the support will end up being 
>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>> or very different between implementations.
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>             
>>>>> I agree to this, I'd love to see Sentence go. It's not only a 
>>>>> nightmare to implement, it can also lead to obscure bugs with 
>>>>> languages that don't have a concept of "sentence".
>>>>>
>>>>> Harald
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
>>>>> Accessibility-ia2 lists freestandards org
>>>>> http://lists.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
>>>>>   
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list
>>>>> Gnome-accessibility-devel gnome org
>>>>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list
>>>> Gnome-accessibility-devel gnome org
>>>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>         
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list
> Gnome-accessibility-devel gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel
>