W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > December 2011

RE: Request to re-open issue 131

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 04:26:33 +0000
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, "dbolter@mozilla.com" <dbolter@mozilla.com>, Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E3EACD022300B94D88613639CF4E25F8366F0569@TK5EX14MBXC134.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I am re-posting this message to public-html@w3.org to ensure that it is archived there.  Please note that Sam has already replied to this message and thus they will appear out of order in the archive.


Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Pritchard [mailto:chuck@jumis.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 10:47 PM
To: Sam Ruby
Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger; Cynthia Shelly; dbolter@mozilla.com; Frank Olivier; Maciej Stachowiak; Paul Cotton; public-canvas-api@w3.org; public-html@w3.org; public-html-a11y@w3.org
Subject: Re: Request to re-open issue 131

On 12/9/11 7:25 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 12/09/2011 05:42 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>> I see Ian replaced the entire Canvas 2D API spec. without a formal
>> proposal:
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/
> Should a formal proposal not be forthcoming, and should you be able to 
> obtain testimonials from at least two major implementors that that 
> they would be willing to implement your proposal should it be adopted, 
> then you have nothing to worry about.  If you need to modify your 
> Change Proposal(s) in order to obtain these testimonials, you have the 
> opportunity to do so.  We've not established a deadline yet for this, 
> but the earliest deadline we would impose would be late January by 
> this point.  It could possibly even be later.

I'm not intimately familiar with W3C processes -- but I must ask -- why do you claim this action is "nothing to worry about"? The latest revision reverts  changes made by the chair decision "applied no later than the end of day on the Thu 12th of May [2011]".

The proposal Richard has been floating recently simply covers TextMetrics and has little-to-nothing to do with the chair decision from May. It was requested that the issue remain separate from the May action by the chairs.

I'm thoroughly confused as to what the subject is, when you are referring to "your proposal". What weight or authority does the decision from May have? The patch was applied by W3C staff as the editor would not apply it himself. The editor recently reverted the change, and neither the chairs nor editor have provided an explanation.

>> Could you please clarify how this is consistent with the HTML working 
>> groups decision policy or with the process you refer to below?
> There exists a document in CVS with Ian's name on it with the 
> following text prominently in the frontmatter:
>     The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working Draft
>     does not imply that all of the participants in the W3C HTML working
>     group endorse the contents of the specification. Indeed, for any
>     section of the specification, one can usually find many members of
>     the working group or of the W3C as a whole who object strongly to
>     the current text, the existence of the section at all, or the idea
>     that the working group should even spend time discussing the
>     concept of that section.
> If you would like to create a parallel document in CVS with your name 
> on it and the same disclaimer, we will help you do that.  But I will 
> state that there really is no need to do that.  Your Change Proposals 
> are sufficient.
> I already stated why the Chairs elected to take this action.  If you 
> have a problem with this, I encourage you to take this up with PLH.
> Mike Smith will assist you in this effort should you decide to go this 
> route.
> Obviously, I would encourage you to focus on obtaining implementer 
> testimonials instead of taking that path, but the choice is yours.

I think we all understand that the existence of an implemented API across two independent implementations is an often used and accepted measure for writing the standard. Many implementers are hesitant to put in such implementations in relation to accessibility until there's some guidance from the w3c. We seem to be in a catch-22 here.

Further, the editor of the HTML specification has repeatedly rejected use cases put forward regarding Canvas accessibility.

>> I also noticed Ian went into numerous related defects and added 
>> requests for use cases, such as:
>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13578
>> We have on numerous occasions provided information on things like 
>> providing the bounds of an object such as Frank Olivier presented at 
>> TPAC. Please refer to the use cases minuted at the TPAC discussion.
> I'm pleased to see that things are progressing again.  As to Ian's
> request: since you state that the data is already publicly available, 
> I encourage you to provide pointers to that data.

I've repeatedly written summaries on this list, and will continue to point to that data. There is a summary in the bug report itself, in fact, that bug report was simply issued based on a lengthy summary of use cases and arguments against those cases.

> In any case, if for any reason these bugs aren't resolved to your 
> satisfaction by December 31st 2011[1], you will have the opportunity 
> to escalate the bugs and propose your own resolutions in the form of 
> concrete Change Proposals.

They've been escalated as far as I'm aware.

The HTML editor continues to assert that interactive Canvas accessibility is not an issue as Canvas should not be used for interactive components, beyond an arbitrary set of button, checkbox and radio. This is reflected on the whatwg specification.

We're in a bit of a bind here.

I'm sure vendors will move forward, regardless, as they have real-world commitments to accessibility. The chairs previously put forward a decision which has now been circumvented by the HTML editor. It seems odd to submit Change Proposals under such circumstances. Why go through the process if it holds no authority?

>> I am leaving for vacation in an hour and will be unavailable for 
>> mostly through the end of the year. I look forward to your reply.
> Unfortunately, I wasn't around to respond within the hour.  Hopefully 
> you will see this when you return.


Tell you what, Sam Ruby, I'll keep an eye on this thread while Richard is on vacation.

If you feel it worth your time to respond, here I'll be.

Meanwhile, I will comply with Ian Hickson's request, posting links to the various use cases discussed on this list over the past two years.

Received on Saturday, 10 December 2011 04:27:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:25 UTC