AccessKit / AccessKit/accesskit
Synchronous API?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 1.5k
- Forks
- 114
- Avg merge
- 8h 25m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 28
Description
Out of curiosity, what made you choose to design AccessKit around an internal tree shadowing the UI, instead of as a synchronous API over an existing widget/text node/... tree?
The synchronous approach has some drawbacks (e.g. I'm not sure how well it would integrate with immediate-mode UIs like egui), but does have some major advantages:
- The ability to request details as required, instead of requiring all possible details (down to the level of glyph positions) ahead-of-time
- Support test-driven-development: users may write
todo!()impls and fill these in as required. - The ability to build a shadow tree (like AccessKit's current API) as an external adapter over the synchronous API. (The reverse is not possible.)
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the issue's comparison between AccessKit's internal shadow tree and a synchronous API, including the noted immediate-mode UI, detail lookup, testing, and adapter concerns. No files, tests, entry points, or concrete implementation target are named; done would require a maintainer decision about whether this design change is wanted.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- accessibility
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 20/100