W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-canvas-api@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Path to Last Call (was closing various issues)

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:07:57 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80908230507v52e4c373id406708ee1ba7c34@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, public-canvas-api@w3.org
Hi maciej,

>I not heard any claims the ARIA integration work done so far is
insufficient for Last Call.

as far as i can tell the ARIA spec text was only added in the last few days,
and its presence was not signalled on the html wg or wai-xtech mailing lists
(unless i missed it)  so it is not surpising little feedback has been
forthcoming, hopefully the spec text and Ians questions will be discussed in
this weeks PF meetings.

In regards to the canvas issues, while i generally agree that good progress
is being made,
I may be misunderstanding the discussions so far, but I do not get a sense
yet that a solution will be forthcoming without some additions to the canvas
API involving the creation of shadow W3C dom objects and focus management.


2009/8/23 Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>

> On Aug 23, 2009, at 3:44 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>  Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> Hi Sam,
>>> I have updates for you on some of the issues mentioned in this email
>>> which I hope you will find useful.
>>> On Aug 22, 2009, at 5:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>> Given that you said that issue 53 would only going to take a few hours,
>>>> if it needed to be addressed at all, I don't believe that it is on the
>>>> critical path, so I'm inclined to give Maciej and Julian a bit more time to
>>>> work on it.
>>> Julian, Ian and I all seem to agree that ISSUE-53 needs some form of WG
>>> decision to resolve. I have proposed a lazy consensus resolution that I hope
>>> can resolve the issue. I'm not sure Julian and I need or want time to work
>>> on it - what we need is a WG decision.
>> You have proposed a lazy consensus resolution.  I've marked ISSUE-53
>> pending review.
> Thanks.
>  These are all reasonable next steps.  I would add that rationale (whomever
>> documents it) for the table in section 3.2.6 would facilitate and accelerate
>> a review.  Meanwhile, I simply maintain that I do not believe that I have
>> heard that there is a consensus that ARIA integration is done.  In fact,
>> based on my reading of what you just wrote, I do not believe that you
>> consider it done.  And I further maintain that consensus that ARIA
>> integration is done is a requirement for us to reach Last Call.
> I not heard any claims the ARIA integration work done so far is
> insufficient for Last Call. I'm not drawing any solid conclusions from this
> until there has been a reasonable review period. But if objections do not
> come up, from PFWG or otherwise, then I will assume what we have is suitable
> for Last Call. (Note: I reviewed the ARIA integration section myself and
> pointed out some minor issues; I did not see any LC blockers.)
>  FWIW, recent experience has proven otherwise as to whether or not email
>> has been the optimal medium for making progress on this particular item; I
>> have no earthly idea why that is, but it is a reality that we must deal
>> with.
> I think email turned out to be a poor medium for sharing understanding of
> the big-picture issues - a bit of phone conversation worked much better. I
> am hoping email will turn out to be more effective for working through the
> details, because figuring out the answers to dozens of low-level technical
> issues is not the kind of scenario where telecons shine.
>>  May I also add, it is not clear to me why you have continued to criticize
>>> Ian on ARIA. It seems to me that he did exactly what was asked, namely
>>> incorporate ARIA and engage with PFWG on the details. And it seems like
>>> further discussion is progressing nicely. Is there anything else you think
>>> he needs to do?
>> Can you point to the criticism?  I simply see a point of disagreement as
>> to whether we consider this item done.  I also considered this item to be a
>> potential bottleneck, and encouraged him and others to talk directly as a
>> way to accelerate progress.  And I believe I've amply thanked those that
>> actually did talk for actually doing so.
> I haven't seen you thank Ian for doing the HTML5+ARIA design and drafting
> work you asked for. In light of that, your voicing of concerns about the
> process prior to that point and your insistence that he needs to take some
> action on the ARIA issue come off as criticism.
>>  I previously asked you if you could make the call of 13 August.  For
>>>> whatever reason, you did not attend.  I am now asking you if you could work
>>>> with Michael Cooper and/or Richard Schwerdtfeger to find a mutual time in
>>>> which you could participate, via phone, in a discussion on what remains to
>>>> be done to complete issue 74.  And, yes, I am intentionally saying issue 74
>>>> as that is the one that at this point in time looks like it has the most
>>>> remaining work needed to be done.  Issue 35 can proceed in parallel, perhaps
>>>> even exclusively over email.
>>> This Friday, there was a conference call to discuss a proposal for canvas
>>> accessibility. I attended, as did Dave Singer and James Craig from Apple. I
>>> believe you were invited but for whatever reason decided not to attend. I
>>> know it can be hard to gauge the outcome of a telecon from minutes alone at
>>> times, so let me give you my own subjective view.
>> This is not my area of expertise.  I asked Richard Schwerdtfeger about
>> this and he said that I was simply included on the emails "as FYI". I've
>> only ever worked at one employer, so I don't know if this is common in other
>> cultures, but as I indicated that this call was important to me, including
>> such people "as FYI" on the invite is a common practice within IBM.
> Canvas and accessibility APIs (at least on Mac) are among my areas of
> expertise. And I don't think adding telecon participants (either you or Ian)
> would be useful to short-term progress on this issue.
> What would be useful is volunteers to try making mockups of accessible
> versions of canvas content. The prototyping methodology we are using is to
> put the alternate accessible presentation outside the canvas for now, since
> current browsers do not expose canvas content to assistive technologies. I'm
> particularly interested in volunteers who are already somewhat familiar with
> the canvas API, but anyone willing to get their hands dirty with some
> scripting and markup is encouraged to help.
>  I think more input from Ian would be welcome, but is not on the critical
>>> path at this time. This assessment is based on my personal involvement with
>>> work on this issue. I have also briefed Ian privately on progress so far.
>>> And I have asked the informal group working on this if they are willing to
>>> pull in the deadline for providing a proposal to the HTML WG, to some point
>>> earlier than December.
>>> If you'd like to know any more about the status of this issue, feel free
>>> to ask.
>> What concerns me is that action 132 has a target date of 2009-12-17, and
>> that I do not believe that we can enter Last Call until there is consensus
>> that Issue 74 is resolved.
> I agree, which is why I've asked the group working on this to pull back the
> due date for a proposal (I suggested end of September). Unfortunately this
> was on a discussion thread in private widely Cc'd email. I've asked that all
> future discussion on this topic should be on an archived W3C mailing list. I
> believe given the progress so far that (a) a proposal can be ready by end of
> September and (b) the proposal will likely require less than a week of
> drafting work to integrate into the spec. But perhaps others will disagree.
> Regards,
> Maciej

with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
Received on Sunday, 23 August 2009 12:08:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:48 UTC