Re: [g-a-devel] How to imlement ARIA's owns and hasparent in ATK (which relations)



Hi Aaron,

Thanks for the explanation of "owns". Sounds like we agree on child of. Perhaps we should add the inverse relation to the atk/at-spi.

What will the IA2 mapping be?

cheers,
David

Aaron Leventhal wrote:
ARIA owns is for things where there are children, but they are not contained by the parent.
This is necessary to separate 2 types of parent concept:
1. Parent as a container with children inside (like a groupbox or a document) -- this is the normal use of parent in an accessible object hierarchy 2. Parent as something which logically groups external items, as in a parent tree item, a menu item with a submenu, a button with a popup, or a diagram object with children, such as in an organizational chart. This is the concept of ARIA owns.

I'm not sure that ARIA really differentiates between the popup and non-popup case of owns. Owns doesn't care if the owned items are currently visible.

Child of sounds right, but then the inverse relation isn't there.

- Aaron


David Bolter wrote:
Aaron Leventhal wrote:
We need to support the owns=[idrefs] relation, as well as hasparent=[idref].
They are basically the same, but owns allows you do create the definition on the owner vs. hasparent on what's owned. Owns can have more than 1 item, hasparent can contain only 1 ID. It's probable that hasparent will be removed before ARIA becomes final.

Which ever is used, the user agent can expose both sides of the relationship via AT-SPI and IA2.

We need to figure out which AT-SPI relations we should use for each. Here are the possibilities:

RELATION_MEMBER_OF
RELATION_NODE_CHILD_OF
RELATION_SUBWINDOW_OF
RELATION_EMBEDS
RELATION_EMBEDDED_BY
RELATION_POPUP_FOR
RELATION_PARENT_WINDOW_OF

Definitions of owns and haspopup here:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/adaptable/
I don't have a login for this. But I did find this definition of the owns relation: 'The owns property defines an object as a parent of another document element, however the child does not appear directly in the subtree of the owner."
(http://www.w3.org/TR/aria-state/)

This definition makes is sound like an ancestor-of kind of relation but I'd like clarity here. Is there an implied containment? Or an implied "within subtree" (if you know what I mean)?

Here is my attempt at a deductive approach based on this interpretation of "owns" and having re-read the at-spi docs (and after a couple of glasses of wine):

RELATION_MEMBER_OF
  * I don't understand the at-spi defintion of this relation clearly.
RELATION_NODE_CHILD_OF
 * possibly
RELATION_SUBWINDOW_OF
* possibly but i don't like that it has "window" in the name... could be confusing
RELATION_EMBEDS
 * cross process definition doesn't fit.
RELATION_EMBEDDED_BY
 * ditto
RELATION_POPUP_FOR
* popup is a subtype of "owns" correct? if so this doesn't seem to capture all of "owns"
RELATION_PARENT_WINDOW_OF
 * ditto comment to subwindow_of relation

So I'd lean towards child_of but there is no reciprocal parent_of?

What about RELATION_EXTENDED?

Let's hear from the guru... Bill?

D

Definitions of AT-SPI relations here:
http://www.gnome.org/~billh/at-spi-idl/html/namespaceAccessibility.html#a215

Opinions?

- Aaron
_______________________________________________
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




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]