Re: [orca-list] Orca Find

[Storm Dragon <stormdragon2976 gmail com>]

Hi,
Ok I was just using it wrong lol. I thought it would search the whole document and move the cursor to the occurance of the text. Now that I use flat review I noticed it was moved correctly to the search string.
Thanks
Storm

--

Registered Linux user number 508465:
http://counter.li.org/
My blog, Thoughts of a Dragon:
http://www.stormdragon.us/
My last.fm profile:
http://www.last.fm/user/stormdragon2976

On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 06:03 -0500, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
> Hey Storm.
>
> > with it. Is it broken?
>
> It has it's occasional quirks, but it's not broken to my knowledge.
>
> >  I first was checking in a file for 3 # characters.
>
> I just tried this and it worked.
>
> >  I could have easily done it with the find dialog built in to Gedit,
> > but I decided to use Orca's version instead. It didn't move the cursor
> > to the new location,
>
> It's not supposed to move the cursor. If everyone thinks it should, then
> that is an RFE. But Orca Find is a flat review feature. It attempts to
> locate the string you provide by looking at:
>
> 1. what's on screen
> 2. in the focused/active window
>
> So if your '###' were not visible, Orca Find should not find it. And if
> there were a visible toolbar button which contained '###' Orca Find
> should find it. And if the '###' is visible in the text widget in gedit,
> and if gedit was focused immediately before you launched find, Orca Find
> should find it. And if it fails to do so, then that's a bug.
>
> >  and after the second attempt it said the string was not found.
>
> Are you sure the ### was visible at the time and that the gedit window
> was the active window?
>
> >  So, I created a file with:
> > This is some text
> > this is more text
> > this is even more text
> > and did a search for the word text.
>
> I did this and it worked as expected.
>
> >  It said the word some, not text,
>
> That would be a bug. If you can make it happen, please file it. Also
> please capture a screen shot if possible.
>
> >  but still did not move  the location of the cursor
>
> Because it's a flat review feature, it would not move the cursor, but if
> you continued to use flat review you should (hopefully) discover that
> the flat review context position was the match.
>
> > So, am I missing some critical concept, or should I be filing a bug?
>
> Possibly both. <smile> Having read the above, please let me know what
> you discover.
>
> Thanks!
> --joanie