> Anyway, I thought that the first step here was to migrate the > current gail (with their virtues and drawbacks) to gtk. And although > things would be easier with a good atk documentation, Im not sure if > this is a blocking here. well, I'm not sure it is absolutely blocking, but I would think this is and the tests are a very strong desire. Because even if I didn't go out of my way to implement atk the right way I'm sure some things would have to change when moving from the gtk internal api to the internal one. I'd also want to implement things correctly the first time instead of hoping I'd come back and do that later. > > >2. Test that the accessible implementations actually follow that spec. > > > >I want to be able to have a unit test in the GTK+ repository that > >instantiates a widget, gets the corresponding accessible, and then > >verifies that it has the expected properties. If we had such > >testcases, it would not have taken 9 months from me committing the > >breaking change to me committing the fix. On the other hand, the fact that's a pretty sad state of afairs for gtk. I'm not sure how to specify exactly what the name / description of an atk object should be, but I think its fairly expected that the name of a menu item is the label of the entry (honestly if you asked what I would call the text on a menu entry I would say name). I'm not sure how to specify exactly what the name / description of an atk object should be, but I think its fairly expected that the name of a menu item is the label of the entry (honestly if you asked what I would call the text on a menu entry I would say name). fwiw http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd318483%28v=vs.85%29.aspx is the equivelent value on windows and is specified only a little more specificily. I don't intend this as any thing approaching a spec but the many of Geckos relevant tests can be found at http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/find?text=&string=accessible%2Ftests%2Fmochitest%2Fname I'm not sure what other toolkits that implement atk have test sweets testing there implementation. > >that nobody filed a bug maybe tells us something about the amount of > >real-life usage that the gnome3 accessibility stack currently gets... well, it is, but that's kind of meaningless since afaik very few people use gtk from git instead they use whatever there distro ships, and afaik distros either only recently started shipping gtk 3 / gnome 3 or haven't done so yet. So I'm not very suprised that no users have complained about this. Trev
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature