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

Re: hit testing and retained graphics

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 09:20:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+ri+VnHGr4kG5k65PYnTKBAoLekNXpcRZFCD_HMTycG4Z7u+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, "E.J. Zufelt" <everett@zufelt.ca>, Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, "david.bolter@gmail.com" <david.bolter@gmail.com>, Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, "Mike@w3.org" <Mike@w3.org>, "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>
hi ben,
I am assuming that no one disagrees that the use of canvas provide display
and interaction with a remote system is a legitimate use case?

If so, there is also the keyboard only case. the romote access app I linked
to works fine with the keyboard except that when focus moves offscreen the
view isn't modified  to display the focused content. I think this could be
fixed by the ability to define focusable areas on the the canvas. Again this
would not require access to the full remote accessibility stack.

regards
stevef

On 3 July 2011 07:29, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

> hi Ben,
>
> I thought I was clear, I have been talking about the screen magnifier case
> , not the general AT case. The only information that would need to be
> provided from the remote machine is the size and position of the focused
> object, this could then be used to provide the focus information to the
> local accessibility layer.
>
> regards
> Stevef
>
> On 3 July 2011 02:54, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Steve Faulkner
>> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I don't see why you would have to duplicate the whole accessibility
>> > stack  to provide focus tracking for a screen magnifier, can you
>> > explain this a bit further?
>>
>> The remote system access server would need to translate the remote
>> applications (as accessed by the accessibility tree plus custom hooks)
>> into DOM. To support custom views/controls for which we do not have
>> semantics in the web stack or to provide any application-specific
>> customizations, local AT would have to make special interpretations of
>> the DOM (either directly or as exposed to the accessibility API). Thus,
>> the accessibility stack (converting remote applications into accessible
>> interfaces) would need to be duplicated.
>>
>> If you disagree, can you explain precisely what you think the remote
>> system access server on the one hand, and local AT on the other, would
>> need to do?
>>
>> --
>> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
>>
>
>
>
> --
> with regards
>
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG
>
> www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
> dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
> Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
>
>
>


-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Sunday, 3 July 2011 08:34:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:26 UTC