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 13:26:55 +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: <20130930042652.GN2488@sideshowbarker>
Hi Rik,

Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>, 2013-09-29 19:15 +0000:

> Hi Mike,
> 
> that conversation was specifically about the path object, not focus rings.
> The APIs that takes path objects are not implemented and are on the at-risk list.

ah, OK. Sorry, I should have read more carefully.

  --Mike

> ________________________________________
> From: Michael[tm] Smith [mike@w3.org]
> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 10:03 AM
> To: Rik Cabanier
> Cc: mark@w3.org; schwer@us.ibm.com; dbolter@mozilla.com; dmazzoni@chromium.org; franko@microsoft.com; public-html-a11y@w3.org; janina@rednote.net
> Subject: Re: FW: update to at risk features in Canvas
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Monday, 30 September 2013 04:27:08 UTC

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