W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-canvas-api@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: Alternative Canvas proposal from Charles

From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:59:10 -0700
Cc: David Bolter <david.bolter@gmail.com>, cooper@w3.org, janina@rednote.net, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, cyns@exchange.microsoft.com, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Frank Olivier <franko@microsoft.com>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <0C7DBA24-7E55-4D2D-8ADA-35F16814FB4E@apple.com>
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>

I agree that image map on canvas should be allowed, and I think it would be useful and sufficient in many cases. However, I do not believe image maps are sufficient for complex examples of applications rendered in canvas, because there is no concept of DOM hierarchy between image map areas. Bespin, for example, would be tedious nearly impossible to implement accessibly with mere image maps. 

Even if the hierarchy issue could be resolved with image maps, there is no concept of allowing interactive form-like elements in a free-standing AREA tag. For example Charles, how would you propose a textfield would act as an image map area? 

I support the idea of image maps on canvas as an addition to, but not as a replacement of, the shadow DOM idea. That said, I haven't been following the shadow DOM work closely enough to know what issues the specific language has. I hope to review the work again soon.


On Jun 18, 2010, at 8:50 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:

> Charles has asked that the canvas accessibility working group review his proposal for applying an areamap for accessibility to a canvas. He indicated that there may be some details missing but that it should be good enough for review. 
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Map4NotAdom
> Charles is traveling on Monday. So, I think the best thing to do is review his proposal and provide feedback. Charles would like to treat this as a replacement proposal although it uses some aspects of our original proposal. His reasoning is that it is easier for the author to have one solution for addressing canvas. 
> Let's see if we can wrap this up quickly. 
> There will be no canvas meeting this Monday while we review this proposal.
> Rich
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
> CTO Accessibility Software Group
Received on Friday, 18 June 2010 20:59:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:50 UTC