Joseph,
Net. Net: So, do I need to change the expected results for these tests:
85-88 based on this discussion?
https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/testharness/testcases?testsuite_id=2
Rich
Rich Schwerdtfeger
From: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
To: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>,
Cc: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>, Richard
Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, David Bolter
<dbolter@mozilla.com>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats
<public-pfwg@w3.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Cynthia
Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>
Date: 09/20/2013 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: ARIA Test Cases 86 and 87 are invalid
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.
--
;;;;joseph.
'A: After all, it isn't rocket science.'
'K: Right. It's merely computer science.'
- J. D. Klaun -
