W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > November 2013

RE: Call for Consensus: Canvas 2d spec

From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 03:42:10 +0000
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
CC: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <8aa45146040e4fbc8345f050247dd535@BLUPR03MB166.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Based on the feedback from Jatinder and Apple, Microsoft does not support this proposal.  We believe that the focus ring APIs need significant work, and should be moved to L2 rather than put at risk in L1.

-----Original Message-----
From: Janina Sajka [mailto:janina@rednote.net] 
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 10:30 PM
To: Cynthia Shelly
Cc: Charles McCathie Nevile; public-html-a11y@w3.org; Jatinder Mann
Subject: Re: Call for Consensus: Canvas 2d spec

I believe the CfC is concerned with testing for consensus about which a11y items are expected in the current Canvas revision, i.e. "At Risk"
for the moment but implemented and testable in the near term, versus those we agree to postpone to "level 2," if I'm recalling the nomenclature correctly.

This is different, imo, from a discussion of optimal naming of the methods. Can we not conclude testing consensus over this even as we continue to discuss optimal naming of these methods?


Cynthia Shelly writes:
> I'd like to ask that this call be postponed for a couple of days.  The 
> discussion between Rik and Jatinder around the naming of 
> drawFocusRings is not complete.  Jatinder's mail bounced, and has just 
> been forwarded to the list.  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Nov/0015.html
> Microsoft would like to discuss this at TPAC during the HTML5 meeting, or at next week's html-a11y meeting.
> Thanks,
> Cynthia
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru]
> Sent: Monday, November 4, 2013 11:20 PM
> To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
> Subject: Call for Consensus: Canvas 2d spec
> Hi folks,
> this is a call for consensus on the following two propositions:
> The HTML Accessibility Task Force accepts that path objects and relevant methods operating on them, hit regions, text metrics other than width, and ellipses could be moved to Canvas2d level 2 - i.e. a later verion of the specification.
> The HTML Accessibility Task Force accepts that the drawSystemFocusRing and drawCustomFocusRing methods on elements in the "canvas shadow DOM" are "at risk" in Canvas2D - and that without implementation, the Canvas2D specification could drop them  to move to Recommendation.
> For more background to these questions, please see
> http://www.w3.org/2013/10/31-html-a11y-minutes.html#item03
> Silence will be considered assent, but positive answers for each of the two propositions are preferred. Responses will be accepted until Midnight Hawaiian time on Wednesday November 13, and should be made in this email thread.
> for the facilitators
> Chaals
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
>        chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com


Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair,	Protocols & Formats	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
	Indie UI			http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 03:42:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:36 UTC