Hi David,
> Right, accessible hierarchies change, sometimes a lot (e.g. DOM under
> DHTML apps). I too, would be concerned about pushing all changes and the
> potential for performance strain. I'm interested to hear more details
> though.
I don't want to argue about this too much, because either
Hi Willie, Michael, David,
I think we have ended up with a number of different object life-cycle
issues being discussed at the same time. I'll try and split them up, but
all in one e-mail. Sorry if i'm doing a very long-winded analysis.
Lazy accessible proxy creation
-
Right, accessible hierarchies change, sometimes a lot (e.g. DOM under
DHTML apps). I too, would be concerned about pushing all changes and the
potential for performance strain. I'm interested to hear more details
though.
cheers,
David
Willie Walker wrote:
> Hi Mark:
>
> The following is going to
Hi Willie,
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 09:40 -0500, Willie Walker wrote:
> The following is going to sound wishy-washy. The main thing is that
> I'm on the fence about this and think we really need a good performance
> analysis to determine which way to go. I'm CC'ing Michael Meeks for a
> numbe
Hi Mark:
The following is going to sound wishy-washy. The main thing is that
I'm on the fence about this and think we really need a good performance
analysis to determine which way to go. I'm CC'ing Michael Meeks for a
number of reasons and hope he can also provide some insight.
What w
Hello everyone,
Currently the AT-SPI and ATK system has a 'lazy' system for creating new
accessible objects.
What we have been doing with AT-SPI D-Bus doesn't fit well with this
system. The idea was that an application would 'publish' its
accessibility information to the ATs, by pushing an entire
