iaccessible2 and linux (was Re: Lubuntu and Accessibility)

[Isaac Porat]

Hi

My comments were not a criticism of at-spi but rather the need were 
possible to unify accessibilities standard across platforms for the 
simple reason that if software vendors have to worry about one 
accessibility stack it is better than two or three, as Linux as very 
small user based it is always left behind by the main vendors.

In Windows there is MSAA which is a subset of both iAccessible2 and 
Microsoft own UI automation.
There is also Java accessibility standard which is only supported (and 
even this is not great) by NVDA. This applies to Swing components, IBM 
Java SWT components work great in Windows anybody using Eclipse in 
Windows will know how accessible it is (I believe it is not bad in Linux 
either but not tried it recently), it relies on the native gui 
components for the OS which is a great approach.

So more than one standard can co-exist as time moves on there is a need 
for new features and compatibility.

I heard various stories on the feasibility of implementing iAccessible2 
in Linux as well including the possibility of building a bridge to 
at-spi but I know very little about either.

Anyway both myself and Bill Cox are very interested in cross platform 
accessibility solutions and working on a non related system right now.

It is our desire to look at this issue at some stage in the not too 
distant future and we will keep you posted and seek other developers who 
might be interested.

Regards
Isaac


On 07/06/2011 13:47, Piñeiro wrote:
> On 06/07/2011 03:36 AM, Isaac Porat wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I was asking the same question a couple of years ago.  My 
>> understanding after looking a bit into the issue is that IBM 
>> consulted at the time key people in accessibility in Linux (there 
>> still some minutes of these meetings) to make both interfaces as 
>> close as possible which as indicated it is somewhat the case.
>>
>> Reading between the lines, iAccessible2 was not accepted for Linux 
>> because of both companies and Linux vs Windows politics. the 
>> interfaces are close but not the same.  At the time perhaps if 
>> somebody on the Linux side took a more favourable approach the 
>> communication layer in iAccessible2 implementations would have been 
>> properly separated.  As it happened my understanding from Bil Cox who 
>> looked at the issue in more details in the Windows world the 
>> implementation and communication layers can be mixed with vendors who 
>> want to support both Windows and Linux so in practice they need to a 
>> good extend maintain two separate stacks and with the ratio of 
>> Windows to Linux users of something like 90 to 1 Linux support not 
>> suprisingly is always behind.
>
> It is true that there are people that thinks that moving iAccessible2 
> to Linux should be the path. But AFAIK, the reason of why it wasn't 
> done was not due politics. It was in order to avoid to "reinvent the 
> wheel". Linux had already a working accessible interface, ATK, 
> implemented by a lot of actors on Linux (gtk, firefox, etc). So moving 
> to iAccessible2 means to change all in order to move to a (as already 
> said) really similar technology, with similar features.
>
> But I also understand that having "just one thing" would have a lot of 
> advantages.
>
> BTW: AFAIK, this is not "one is better that two". AFAIK MacOS doesn't 
> use ATK or Ia2:
> http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Accessibility/Conceptual/AccessibilityMacOSX/OSXAXModel/OSXAXmodel.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40001078-CH208-TPXREF101 
>
>
> Or I'm wrong?
>
> BR
>