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

Re: adom proposal

From: David Bolter <david.bolter@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:17:35 -0500
Message-ID: <4B7EAB8F.3070304@gmail.com>
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
CC: "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, jcraig@apple.com, cyns@exchange.microsoft.com, surkov.alexander@gmail.com, Frank Olivier <franko@microsoft.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Hi Rich,

Thanks for driving this.

I can't speak for Mozilla as a whole, but thinking of all our 
discussions and the feedback that has come from people inside and 
outside this group, this approach seems like a reasonable compromise to 
me, and I'd like to hear what others think.


For the introductory paragraphs:

" When possible a facility must me" should be "be"

" accessible binding" needs to be defined. "Binding" might get confused 
with XBL etc.

" The determination of the disposition of the <canvas> subtree can be 
determined at load time." could be "can be done at load time."

" When set to true it indicates that the canvas subtree is to be use as 
a direct accessible subtree of canvas" could be " When set to true it 
indicates that the canvas subtree is to be used as a directly keyboard 
operable accessible subtree of canvas".

" The fallback content can come over the wire" could be "Progressive 
enhancement can be achieved since the fallback content...", and " a 
script can determine whether canvas is renderable" could be "a script 
can use feature detection to determine...".

In the proposed text for html5:

I would say something about the adom indicating that the sub-tree of 
canvas is intended to interact (be kept in sync?) with the canvas 
rendering. I would not prescribe that the " rendering of the subtree is 
controlled by script through the canvas API".

Regarding the last sentence " Add the following definition to the HTML 5 
glossary:" was there more here?

On 18/02/10 2:20 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> Folks,
> I would like to take my adom proposal change to canvas to vote. Do you
> support it? I have a due date of February 25. I need to get the last draft
> in spec. ready format for the weekend and after the last meeting we appear
> to have consensus barring some word smithing. We still have  a dependency
> on Steve to address action item 19 regarding the caret.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2010JanMar/0163.html
> Janina wants to do a straw poll early next week as there is a Feb. 25 due
> date for this. It would seem that the Opera example would be an excellent
> best practice for some content. We would simply set adom to true when
> canvas is supported. The author needs to ensure visual focus is drawn on
> the canvas.
> Rich
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
> Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist
Received on Friday, 19 February 2010 15:18:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:49 UTC