You've provided me with information that I am still having trouble
finding in these docs -- namely that Safari plugins are not inserted
into the heirarchy, and therefore there probably isn't a strategy for
inserting OOP plugins into the accessible tree.
As browsers move more to muti-process architectures, including
muti-process content, I think it is worthwhile thinking through the
right places to solve the related issues so I'm looking to see what
others are doing. For example, native accessibility architectures tend
to be synchronous, but maybe we want to rethink that. I don't want to go
too off topic here though.
On 8/15/09 3:00 PM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
On Aug 15, 2009, at 8:11 PM, David Bolter wrote:
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately I'm particularly interested in how
plugins are inserted into the heirarchy (if they are), and especially
how this is implemented for OOP plugins (probably wrapping and
remoting). I'll investigate.
Plugins are not inserted in the hierarchy. If you'd read these docs
you'd know that saying this doesn't even make sense. The docs tell you
WHAT is inserted and HOW. I advice you not to return until you've read
and understood these docs.
Does Safari have any plugin accessibility support?
If so, what about for out of process plugins?
If the answers aren't very useful that's because you're asking the
wrong questions (just a friendly advice, the docs have all the
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Accessibility-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden