W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pfwg@w3.org > September 2013

Re: ARIA Test Cases 86 and 87 are invalid

From: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:22:38 -0400
Message-ID: <523C683E.5030006@alum.mit.edu>
To: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>
CC: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, David Bolter <dbolter@mozilla.com>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>
Hi Alex,

Thanks!  The table is beginning to make more sense.

>   A note: STATECHANGE event should be fired on unfocused
> (unselected) item and newly focused (selected) item both.

Actually, the table goes on to say:  " ... arrange events so state 
change does not occur on focused item, to avoid extra selection change 
announcements".  That clause appears only under the MSAA and ATK/AT-SPI 
columns.   UIA says the opposite --  focus change "... should be fired 
but individual selection event may not happen to avoid redundancy".

> Also not
> sure whether the spec should define an event order.

Good point.  A common feature of event handling is that the order the 
events arrive is typically undefined, and one cannot write one's 
handlers in a way that depends on event order.  But, I don't know if ATs 
work that way when listening for AAPI events.

Thanks again.


'A: After all, it isn't rocket science.'
'K: Right. It's merely computer science.'
              - J. D. Klaun -
Received on Friday, 20 September 2013 15:23:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:44:52 UTC