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

Re: FW: update to at risk features in Canvas

From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 02:03:23 +0900
To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>
Cc: "mark@w3.org" <mark@w3.org>, "schwer@us.ibm.com" <schwer@us.ibm.com>, "dbolter@mozilla.com" <dbolter@mozilla.com>, "dmazzoni@chromium.org" <dmazzoni@chromium.org>, "franko@microsoft.com" <franko@microsoft.com>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "janina@rednote.net" <janina@rednote.net>
Message-ID: <20130929170321.GR99230@sideshowbarker>
Hi again Rik,

I note that in a related discussion, you wrote:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Sep/0049.html
> yes, an API with the same name was implemented but it is not following
> the spec.  It doesn't seem like this would pass the bar as an
> implementation unless we update the spec.

I think updating the spec might also mean the spec gets changed in a way
that makes it no longer meet the original requirements that were put
forward. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But I think that if in fact
the updated spec were not a solution for the original requirements, then
that should be made clear (so that the requirements can be revisited, or
whatever). At the very least it needs to be made clear that the only
existing implementation we of this at this point does not actually follow
the current spec.

  --Mike

"Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, 2013-09-30 01:15 +0900:

> Hi Rik,
> 
> Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>, 2013-09-29 08:54 -0700:
> 
> > Hi Mike,
> > 
> > I'm unsure why you say that.
> > Feedback from Dominic was that DrawCustomFocusRing could be renamed so it is less confusing.
> 
> It seems to me the reason for the renaming suggestion was not just to make
> it less confusing but because it's actually not itself drawing a custom focus
> ring at all, and is not even ensuring at all that one will actually be drawn.
> 
> Am I wrong about that?
> 
> > Also, the step "If the user has requested the use of particular focus
> > rings" can't be implemented because browsers don't provide special code
> > like this. However, I don't see a "must" there and there's no reason that
> > could not implement this.
> > 
> > I've been working on this feature in Firefox. It's has the same
> > functionality as the code in Chrome (draw a ring around the path using
> > the browser focus style + notify the accessibility code of the focus
> > region).
> > I hope to have a patch with non-flaky tests later today.
> 
> Does that actually meet the original requirement that was stated for
> drawing custom focus rings, or is it doing something different?
> 
>   --Mike
> 
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org<mailto:mike@w3.org>>
> > Date: Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 7:12 AM
> > Subject: Re: update to at risk features in Canvas
> > To: Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org<mailto:mark@w3.org>>
> > Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com<mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com>>, dbolter@mozilla.com<mailto:dbolter@mozilla.com>, Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@chromium.org<mailto:dmazzoni@chromium.org>>, franko@microsoft.com<mailto:franko@microsoft.com>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com<mailto:cabanier@gmail.com>>, HTML A11Y TF Public <public-html-a11y@w3.org<mailto:public-html-a11y@w3.org>>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net<mailto:janina@rednote.net>>
> > 
> > 
> > It seems to me like another question that needs to be asked at this point
> > is whether the requirement for custom focus rings need to be completely
> > reconsidered at this point. To me at least, the implementor feedback that's
> > some back from Dominic so far seems to indicate that the requirement may
> > not be practically implementable in browsers at all, and that the only
> > related thing that is actually implementable is the mechanism that Dominic
> > has discussed -- which as I understand it is essentially just a sort of
> > notification to AT.
> > 
> >   --Mike
> > 
> > Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org<mailto:mark@w3.org>>, 2013-09-26 14:54 -0400:
> > 
> > > On 9/26/13 12:50 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mark,
> > > >
> > > > If that requires 2 implementations by the end of this year I cannot
> > > > guarantee it.
> > >
> > > We agreed to have a "clear path to implementation" for Custom focus rings by the end of the year, with testable implementations by end of Q1 2014.  Do you guys think this is achievable?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 1. They won't allow Safari to count as a second implementation and I have
> > > > not heard of any webkit plans so even if they do implement it, it won't
> > > > matter.
> > > > 2. IE won't share anything that they are doing
> > > > 3. Firefox does not have a person assigned yet.
> > >
> > > Having a person assigned would count toward having a "clear path to implemenation" as long as there is a paper trail of progress being made.
> > >
> > > In your opinion, does dropping support for Dashes[1], text metrics [2] or ellipse() [3] have a negative impact on accessibility.
> > >
> > > We talked about pushing support for Path (or an alternative) to the next version of Canvas, but what about Hit Regions [4]?
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas/#dom-context-2d-setlinedash
> > > [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas/#textmetrics
> > > [3] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas/#dom-context-2d-ellipse
> > > [4] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas/#hit-regions
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > >
> > > > At this point we have drawSystemFocusRing fully implemented in Chrome
> > > > Canary only. If Sam pushes canvas out the door without at least this then
> > > > low vision users will be without access to canvas. I have done everything I
> > > > can thus far to try to get these two implementations moving. W3C should not
> > > > ship the canvas spec with out some means to provide location information.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Rich
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Rich Schwerdtfeger
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From:       Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org<mailto:mark@w3.org>>
> > > > To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
> > > > Date:       09/26/2013 11:36 AM
> > > > Subject:    update to at risk features in Canvas
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Rich,
> > > >
> > > > In the HTML WG telecon today, we became aware that the document we were
> > > > asked to review regarding what was at risk in Canvas was not entirely
> > > > accurate and that there are a couple of new sections that are also at risk.
> > > > Could you review this and let me know if we should be concerned with any of
> > > > these being dropped:
> > > >
> > > > * Path object in Canvas
> > > > * Hit regions
> > > > * Dashes
> > > > * Text metrics
> > > > * Ellipse
> > > >
> > > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/HTML5.0AtRiskFeatures
> > > >
> > > > We have asked to extend the time given to November to provide feedback.
> > > > They are considering that request.
> > > >
> > > > We also agreed to the following:
> > > >
> > > > RubyS: the plan would then be to mark custom focus ring to be at risk at
> > > > this time, seek plans in 4Q 2013 for implementations in 1Q2014.  If this
> > > > function isn't implemented in 1Q2014, it will be removed at that time.
> > > >
> > > > Please let me know if you have any questions regarding any of this.  Enjoy
> > > > your vacation!
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > 
> > -
> > Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
> 
> 

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Sunday, 29 September 2013 17:03:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:35 UTC