Hi all,

I know I‘m late to the discussion, but I would like to show my support for 
expanding the AtkValue interface. Furthermore, it’s not the first time I found 
a situation where having a more complete version of the AtkValue interface 
would be handy (see [1] and [2]), and this element seems like yet another 
reason to re-think extending it, and so doing what it seems to be the right 
thing ☺

From the point of view of the implementation, it should not be an issue to 
expose those optimal, low and high values in WebKit (besides adding some bits 
in WebCore’s a11y layer). The tricky thing will be of course getting the 
textual representation of the value depending on the range it’s in. And 
regarding to this, I personally think Joanie's first proposal (Bad, Better, 
Best) is better than the second one (Bad, Good, Optimal), because anything out 
of "Optimal" doesn't have to be necessarily "good".

However, I still find it like kinda weird, and in a way I personally prefer the 
initial proposal of "optimal", "suboptimal" and "subsuboptimal", even if they 
don't seem to be very scalable. But I think they should probably be enough and 
hopefully, as Alex pointed out, this will probably be  avery specific 
requirement of the <meter> element.

Additionally, I also think the "optimal", "suboptimal" and "subsuboptimal" 
thing matches better with the specific situation of having the optimal subrange 
between [low] and [high]. According to the spec:

"""
UA requirements for regions of the gauge: If the optimum point is equal to the 
low boundary or the high boundary, or anywhere in between them, then the region 
between the low and high boundaries of the gauge must be treated as the optimum 
region, and the low and high parts, if any, must be treated as suboptimal.
"""

In that case, if you have a min < low < high < max range with low < optimal < 
high, you'll get this:

 - value < low => suboptimal
 - value > high => suboptimal
 - low < value < high => optimal

No subsuboptimal here. Also, using "suboptimal" is clearly better here, IMHO, 
than using "better" or "good" (from Joanie's proposal) here for the first too 
cases.

My 2 cents,
Mario

[1] https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=121477
[2] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=684576


_______________________________________________
gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list
gnome-accessibility-devel@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel

Reply via email to