Re: hit testing and retained graphics

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
wrote:
>>> I don't see why you would have to duplicate the whole accessibility
>>> stack  to provide focus tracking for a screen magnifier, can you
>>> explain this a bit further?
>>
>> The remote system access server would need to translate the remote
>> applications (as accessed by the accessibility tree plus custom
>> hooks) into DOM. To support custom views/controls for which we do not
>> have semantics in the web stack or to provide any
>> application-specific customizations, local AT would have to make
>> special interpretations of the DOM (either directly or as exposed to
>> the accessibility API). Thus, the accessibility stack (converting
>> remote applications into accessible interfaces) would need to be
>> duplicated.
>>
>> If you disagree, can you explain precisely what you think the remote
>> system access server on the one hand, and local AT on the other,
>> would need to do?
>
> They can limit their protocol to sending information to elements which
> gain focus, for high-latency/bandwidth constrained environments;

Doesn't detecting the size and position of the focused object require
the remote access server to inspect the accessibility tree *plus custom
hooks*?

> they could enable a protocol along websockets which allows them to
> pass platform specific commands for Accessibility tree queries (such
> as Microsoft's UIA or Apple's UIAutomation);

Do you mean commands issued by client AT?

Doesn't detecting the size and position of the focused object require
the client AT to send commands to inspect the accessibility tree *plus
custom hooks*?

> arbitrary amount of introspection and heuristics.

That's a bit hand-wavy!

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

Received on Sunday, 3 July 2011 08:19:09 UTC