Issue 63984 - The StarOffice->Security options pane doesn't provide useful information for checkboxes when read with a screen reader.
Summary: The StarOffice->Security options pane doesn't provide useful information for ...
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of issue 62723
Alias: None
Product: General
Classification: Code
Component: ui (show other issues)
Version: OOo 2.0.2
Hardware: Sun All
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: OOo 2.0.4
Assignee: nospam4obr
QA Contact: issues@framework
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-04-04 17:19 UTC by richburridge
Modified: 2006-07-18 12:03 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description richburridge 2006-04-04 17:19:39 UTC
This is with Solaris x86 (Nevada b34), with JDS/GNOME vermillion_08
build and with StarOffice 8, build m161 (with the new UNO/atkbridge).
Tested with the Orca screen reader.

Bringup Tools->Options

The StarOffice->Security pane has several checkboxes where the text spoken
for each one is not specific or very useful.
title.

In particular:

For the following checkboxes:

  * When saving or sending
  * When signing
  * When printing
  * When creating PDF files
  * Remove personal information on saving
  * Recommend password protection on saving

What is spoken is the proceeding label:

  Warn if document contains recorded changes, versions, hidden information or notes:

The individual labels for each checkbox should be spoken.

(This bug needs an "accessibility" keyword added to it).
Comment 1 thorsten.martens 2006-04-05 07:48:35 UTC
TM-ES: please have a look, thanks
Comment 2 eric.savary 2006-06-22 13:44:29 UTC
ES->OBR: my tests with m172 give me the opposite results to the original
description. Meaning: all check boxes are read but the label is never read...
Comment 3 nospam4obr 2006-06-23 09:48:58 UTC
I believe this issue has been fixed along issue 62723, which made it into 2.0.3. 

Rich, can you confirm that Erics findings in m172 (which should be the same as
in OOo 2.0.3) are the desired behaviour ?
Comment 4 richburridge 2006-06-27 16:01:53 UTC
I've just installed build m173 on my Solaris x86 box, running
GNOME 2.14 and testing with Orca from CVS HEAD.

Star Office is completely unaccessible. Nothing is getting
spoken or brailled. If I hit F10, the entries in the menubar
*disappear* except for the File one.

This looks like a *major* regression over previous builds.

I suggest you try testing SO for yourselves again the latest Orca.
Comment 5 nospam4obr 2006-06-28 09:10:46 UTC
I can not reproduce your findings with my (rather out-dated) SNV_35 build and
GNOME 2.14 from 03/27/06. I will try again after updating to SNV42.

I assume you used 'en' version ? m173 has some known problems in other
languages. Since m173 includes rather huge code changes due to the "warning free
code" project, it would be interesting to know if m172 has the same problem already.

Also: what is the content of your GTK_MODULES environment variable ?

Thanks,
Oliver
Comment 6 richburridge 2006-06-28 15:02:31 UTC
Yes I mean "en" version. My GTK_MODULES is:

setenv GTK_MODULES gail:atk-bridge
Comment 7 nospam4obr 2006-06-28 15:04:27 UTC
With SNV_42a I can reproduce the menu problem - however, this seems to be more a
problem with the new default theme (Nimbus) than with accessibility: switching
back to blueprint fixed the problem for me.

However, I was able to see the a11y hierarchy with at-poke.

Unfortunatly updating from SNV_35 did not work well, so I now have to re-install
CBE to get orca back on my system. Or is there a package available for download ?
Comment 8 richburridge 2006-06-28 15:18:27 UTC
Thanks for looking at this. I'll email you the location
of vermillion builds as I don't want to put an internal
pathname on a public server.
Comment 9 nospam4obr 2006-07-18 11:45:21 UTC
The issue with the new Solaris default theme should be handled in a seperate
issue. The described issue no longer exists in post 2.0.3.

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 62723 ***
Comment 10 nospam4obr 2006-07-18 12:03:26 UTC
.