W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Alternate CP to resolve ISSUE-74 (also resolves ISSUE-105)

From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:33:49 -0500
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>
Cc: "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html-a11y-request@w3.org, "Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, public-canvas-api@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC99CB11E.0D05BCA3-ON86257745.007B3139-86257745.007BF1F4@us.ibm.com>

Hi Charles,

Do you want us to discuss this on Monday or do you need more time for
details?

Would you prefer, for now, for us to start comments now on the list?

... I need to let people know if we will have a canvas accessibility
meeting on Monday and if we do I would like you to be on the call. Please
let me know

Cheers,

Rich

Rich Schwerdtfeger
CTO Accessibility Software Group



From:	"Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>
To:	"Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc:	"HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Date:	06/14/2010 07:00 AM
Subject:	Re: Alternate CP to resolve ISSUE-74 (also resolves ISSUE-105)
Sent by:	public-html-a11y-request@w3.org



On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:15:53 +0200, Leif Halvard Silli
<xn--mlform-iua@målform.no> wrote:

> Charles McCathieNevile, Sat, 12 Jun 2010 02:39:58 +0200:
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:33:23 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile:
>>
>>> I'll try to update
>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Map4NotAdom with this
>>> content in the next hour or so,
>>
>> Done, plus I got a big chunk of the way through the details section -
...
> (1) I notice that you, unlike how Steve and John have said (I believe),
> pose this solution as a *replacement of* - and not an alternative to -
> the accessible DOM. I believe you have had that approach the whole
> time, because the proposal has had the direction "HTML 4 Maps, not
> accessible DOM" all the time.

I have always had that approach. This proposal is technically compatible
with the nonav proposal (or even with what Ian has currently), but for
reasons I hope are outlined in the proposal rationale already I think it
is better to have one approach, and I believe this is the simplest for
authors.

> (2) May be you should push (harder) on the fact that this solution is
> more compatible with the 1001 variations of "Don't reinvent the
> cow/path/wheel" in our Design Principles, than the aDOM. ;-)

Yes. That's an important part of why I think this approach makes sense.

cheers

Chaals

--
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com






graycol.gif
(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:34:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:12 GMT