Re: [g-a-devel] Coming to grips with the state of a11y in gtk

[Piñeiro <apinheiro igalia com>]

From: Dan Winship <danw gnome org>

> On 02/17/2011 11:22 AM, Piñeiro wrote:
>> You are proposing to forget this "proxy" approach on the accessibility
>> support. As far as I understand you are proposing to implement the ATK
>> interfaces directly on GTK, so instead of having a GTK widget and his
>> accessible equivalent, just having a GTK widget implementing the
>> proper ATK interfaces, right?
>> 
>> I already talked about that in the past (ie [1][2]), but summarizing
>> the reasons to avoid that:
> 
> Turning the Atk classes into interfaces doesn't mean that each
> accessible object has to correspond to a *pre-existing* GObject. In the
> cases where now you create MyFlyWeightWhateverAccessible or
> WebCoreSomethingAccessible as a subclass of AtkObject, in the future
> you'd create them as subclasses of GObject, implementing the AtkObject
> interface. A tiny bit more boilerplate code, but other than that it
> would be just like it is now.

Well, yes of course, thats one option.

Being sincere I mostly C&P those reasons, that I write down on the
times that ATK 2.0 was not an option (and break ATK 1.0 API was and is
not an option right now).

So probably we could study that. Anyway, in the same way, right now I
don't see how this would better that the option proposed by Matthias.

BR

===
API (apinheiro igalia com)