W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-canvas-api@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: libreoffice now implements HTML 5 canvas

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:02:23 -0800
Message-ID: <4F31F3CF.7040103@jumis.com>
To: Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>
CC: Simon Sarris <simon.sarris@gmail.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, "jbrewer@w3.org" <jbrewer@w3.org>, "david.bolter@gmail.com" <david.bolter@gmail.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "mike@w3.org" <mike@w3.org>
Let's agree to disagree.

I'll continue putting my energy into documenting the means in which WCAG 
principles can be met by Canvas authors.
WCAG-TECHS is my builders code.


On 2/7/2012 3:57 PM, Frank Olivier wrote:
> I think the salient point from Simon's email is that attempting to write a canvas text editor is (a) a lot of work and (b) unlikely to deliver a good experience - based on the amount of built-into-the-user-agent/operating-system functionality that the author would have to recreate.
> In my opinion our energy is better spent steering any wayward authors (if, indeed, they exist) to the other excellent editing capabilities in the html5 platform (and understanding their motivation for attempting canvas editing in the first place so that we can improve the more appropriate editing capabilities).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Pritchard [mailto:chuck@jumis.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:14 PM
> To: Simon Sarris
> Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger; Paul Cotton; Sam Ruby; public-html-a11y@w3.org; public-canvas-api@w3.org; Frank Olivier; Cynthia Shelly; jbrewer@w3.org; david.bolter@gmail.com; Philippe Le Hegaret; mike@w3.org
> Subject: Re: libreoffice now implements HTML 5 canvas
> On 2/7/2012 2:02 PM, Simon Sarris wrote:
>> I'm not sure that just because LibreOffice is making this that such
>> features should be accommodated. LibreOffice has already gone a long
>> way to forfeiting accessibility merely by choosing Canvas (see the
>> list below for examples).
>> They're not the first to try such an editor. The Mozilla Bespin (web
>> IDE) project became Mozilla Skywriter became "forget it, we shouldn't
>> have used HTML5 Canvas as a text editor" and merged with Ace, which
>> uses plain old divs and not Canvas. It's not glamorous. But it's sane.
>> (http://ace.ajax.org)
>> The Canvas spec already has an entire section devoted to why making a
>> complex text editor rendered in Canvas is a bad idea, almost all of it
>> relates to accessibility nightmares:
> This is a misunderstanding about scope.
> Programmers and development teams writing authoring tools are taking on big tasks directly related to authoring tools.
> Of course they have to implement all sorts of things.
> Programmers and developers writing blogging software, or something that uses authoring tools, well they are better advised to use libraries, and not recreate everything from scratch.
> These are not accessibility nightmares. They are accessibility requirements.
> Nightmare and requirement are two different things.
> I see WCAG2 and think, great! a list of requirements, a way to set scope.
> I don't think, oh god, what a nightmare, supporting this list.
> There's been a nice meme floating about about an "end to negativity" in the JavaScript realm. I hope it catches on.
> Most programmers work outside of the browser; people who write widgets, who write text layout software, they are fully aware of the intricacies.
> -Charles
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 04:05:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:54 UTC