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

Re: feedback requested: Canvas change for improved hit testing that also facilitates accessibility

From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:06:34 -0500
To: Oliver Hunt <oliver@apple.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, chuck@jumis.com, cyns@exchange.microsoft.com, david.bolter@gmail.com, faulkner.steve@gmail.com, franko@microsoft.com, public-canvas-api@w3.org, public-canvas-api-request@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org, public-html-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF3C3FB5D1.9D73DFF9-ON86257863.0068456F-86257863.0068F841@us.ibm.com>

Oliver,

It is an attempt to simplify hit testing in canvas while at the same time
providing a vehicle to tell an assistive technology the bounds of the
corresponding UI object being drawn on canvas as represented in fallback
content. Currently there is no mapping. These bounds are needed by screen
magnifiers for zooming and screen readers for Braille support (earlier
post).

Now the canvas author has to manage all the hit testing. This is a canvas
deficiency that should have been in place to start - so grafting seems like
an inappropriate response. Consequently, I am also seeing canvas
applications that create the equivalent of visio by creating separate
canvas elements overlayed on top of another canvas to represent drawing
objects. This is very inefficient and will get worse unless something is
done.

Rich Schwerdtfeger
CTO Accessibility Software Group



From:	Oliver Hunt <oliver@apple.com>
To:	Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Cc:	Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, chuck@jumis.com,
            cyns@exchange.microsoft.com, david.bolter@gmail.com,
            faulkner.steve@gmail.com, franko@microsoft.com,
            public-canvas-api@w3.org, public-html@w3.org,
            public-html-a11y@w3.org, public-html-request@w3.org
Date:	03/30/2011 12:11 PM
Subject:	Re: feedback requested: Canvas change for improved hit testing
            that  also    facilitates accessibility
Sent by:	public-canvas-api-request@w3.org



This feels like an attempt to graft retained mode rendering on to canvas,
what am i missing?

--Oliver

On Mar 30, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:



      Thanks Boris. Sorry for being a pest but I really want developers to
      work through the issues.

      So, you would do the following:

      - Assign the a closed draw path to an element in fallback content:
      setClickableRegion(element). This immediately makes the association
      and places it at the bottom of the list.
      - Any time you draw the element it moves it to the top of the list.
      - If the fallback element is removed the association would need to go
      away. I did not address that so I will need to add that to the
      proposal
      - When a pointer event (click, etc.) goes to the fallback element the
      normal capture/bubbling event processing would apply

      Rich


      Rich Schwerdtfeger
      CTO Accessibility Software Group

      <graycol.gif>Boris Zbarsky ---03/30/2011 10:05:48 AM---On 3/30/11
      10:55 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: > Seeing as nobody has
      commented can we assume tha

      From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
      To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
      Cc: public-canvas-api@w3.org, public-html@w3.org,
      public-html-a11y@w3.org, public-html-request@w3.org, chuck@jumis.com,
      cyns@exchange.microsoft.com, david.bolter@gmail.com,
      faulkner.steve@gmail.com, franko@microsoft.com
      Date: 03/30/2011 10:05 AM
      Subject: Re: feedback requested: Canvas change for improved hit
      testing that also facilitates accessibility





      On 3/30/11 10:55 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
      > Seeing as nobody has commented can we assume that developers have
      no
      > problem with our totally changing the canvas 2D API to support
      clickable
      > regions?

      It might just mean that people don't read their mailing list spam
      every
      few hours.

      From reading over your proposal, I'm not sure I follow how it would
      behave in the face of DOM mutations (e.g. elements being removed from

      the fallback content).

      Or put another way, once you draw, you're permanently attaching some
      element to the canvas, right? Or is that not the proposal?

      -Boris






graycol.gif
(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 19:13:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:26 GMT