Closed
Bug 429547
Opened 17 years ago
Closed 17 years ago
Support aria-activedescendant usage in nsIAccesible::TakeFocus()
Categories
(Core :: Disability Access APIs, defect)
Core
Disability Access APIs
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: aaronlev, Assigned: surkov)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
(deleted),
patch
|
aaronlev
:
review+
damons
:
approval1.9+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Currently we only handle #1 below. We need to implement part 2.
1. If the current element can take real DOM focus, set the DOM focus to it.
2. Otherwise, if the current element has and ID an ancestor with a the aria-activedescendant attribute present, then set DOM focus to that ancestor. If successful, then set aria-activedescendant on the ancestor to the ID of the desired element.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•17 years ago
|
||
Assignee: aaronleventhal → surkov.alexander
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #316645 -
Flags: review?(aaronleventhal)
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•17 years ago
|
||
Surkov, do you think that |if (!frame->IsFocusable)| and we don't satisfy all the aria-activedescendant conditions, that we should exit early?
Otherwise looks good.
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•17 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 316645 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
Either way, r+, because the focus attempt should fail anyway. It just might be nice to make sure to fail in those cases.
Attachment #316645 -
Flags: review?(aaronleventhal) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•17 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #2)
> Surkov, do you think that |if (!frame->IsFocusable)| and we don't satisfy all
> the aria-activedescendant conditions, that we should exit early?
>
> Otherwise looks good.
>
Probably that makes sense but I tried to do minimum changes to avoid possible regressions (I keep in mind the case when different accessibles with different frames shares the same DOM node). But if you like I'll change this.
Assignee | ||
Updated•17 years ago
|
Attachment #316645 -
Flags: approval1.9?
Reporter | ||
Comment 5•17 years ago
|
||
True, it is sensible to make the most minimal change.
Comment 6•17 years ago
|
||
Possible to add a test here? Re-request approval once addressed.
Updated•17 years ago
|
Attachment #316645 -
Flags: approval1.9? → approval1.9-
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•17 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 316645 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
(In reply to comment #6)
> Possible to add a test here? Re-request approval once addressed.
>
mochitest with the patch.
re-requesting approval.
Attachment #316645 -
Flags: approval1.9- → approval1.9?
Comment 8•17 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 316645 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
a1.9+=damons
Attachment #316645 -
Flags: approval1.9? → approval1.9+
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•17 years ago
|
||
Checking in accessible/src/base/nsAccessible.cpp;
/cvsroot/mozilla/accessible/src/base/nsAccessible.cpp,v <-- nsAccessible.cpp
new revision: 1.376; previous revision: 1.375
done
Checking in accessible/tests/mochitest/Makefile.in;
/cvsroot/mozilla/accessible/tests/mochitest/Makefile.in,v <-- Makefile.in
new revision: 1.15; previous revision: 1.14
done
RCS file: /cvsroot/mozilla/accessible/tests/mochitest/test_aria_activedescendant.html,v
done
Checking in accessible/tests/mochitest/test_aria_activedescendant.html;
/cvsroot/mozilla/accessible/tests/mochitest/test_aria_activedescendant.html,v <-- test_aria_activedescendant.html
initial revision: 1.1
done
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 17 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•