- From: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 10:40:07 -0400
- To: Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>
Hi Joanie,
On 2015-03-31 7:48 PM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
> Hey all.
>
> Consider the following two examples:
>
> Example 1:
> <div role="grid">
> <div id="childrow" role="row">
> <div role="gridcell">cell 1</div><div role="gridcell">cell 2</div>
> </div>
> </div>
>
> Example 2:
> <div role="grid" aria-owns="siblingrow"></div>
> <div id="siblingrow" role="row">
> <div role="gridcell">cell 1</div><div role="gridcell">cell 2</div>
> </div>
>
> ...
>
> Example 2: The accessible table interface does not work as expected,
> with the reported number of rows being 0, and the reported number of
> columns being 0. Not surprisingly, retrieving a specified cell from an
> interface that doesn't think it has any cells fails.
FWIW, the accessible relationships are correct. That is, for AT-SPI,
there is a RELATION_NODE_CHILD_OF on the row accessible pointing to the
grid accessible, and a RELATION_NODE_PARENT_OF on the grid pointing to
the row.
Similarly, for AXAPI, the AXOwns array property of the grid accessible
properly points to the row accessible.
However, that's small comfort, since it requires the AT to decide how to
use (1) the accessible table interface, (2) the accessibility tree, and
(3) accessible relationships. If it decides to use the relationships,
it has to infer the row/column counts, cell indices, and so on, and
trust that it got it right.
It makes more sense to have the accessible table interface accurately
represent the situation.
--
;;;;joseph.
'Array(16).join("wat" - 1) + " Batman!"'
- G. Bernhardt -
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 14:40:39 UTC