Re: hit regions

The proposal put forward by Hixie-Atkins was pixel based. Our proposals from the canvas working group did not specify pixel-based mapping.



On Aug 19, 2012, at 3:57 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote:

> Also, using pixel-based hit regions can be problematic when anti-aliasing and transparency are considered...
> 
> Leonard
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rik Cabanier [mailto:cabanier@adobe.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 6:18 PM
> To: 'Chaals McCathieNevile'; public-html@w3.org
> Subject: RE: hit regions
> 
> Thanks!
> It seems that hit regions can contain more accessibility information than image maps. Since people are building complex programs with Canvas, it probably needs more metadata.
> I will read up more on issue 105 on the mailing list archive.
> 
> Studying the spec some more, I realize now that hit regions are allowed to overlap, but the second one always knocks out the first one.
> This seems expensive since you will have to either store bunch of bitmaps, or do a bunch of planar mapping code to figure out the paths.
> I think a parent region will also not be notified if the child is clicked.
> 
> Rik
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chaals McCathieNevile [mailto:w3b@chaals.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 4:00 AM
>> To: public-html@w3.org; Rik Cabanier
>> Subject: Re: hit regions
>> 
>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 06:21:35 +0200, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I've been looking at the hit regions API and have some questions.
>> [...]
>>> 3.       There is nothing specific to canvas about hit regions. Would it
>>> make sense to extend them later to other content such as images?
>> 
>> Images have had image maps for a decade and a half already. ISSUE-105 
>> asked if it made sense to go the other way around, and extend that to 
>> canvas, but it seems that wheel wasn't the right colour.
>> 
>> cheers
>> 
>> Chaals
>> 
>> --
>> Chaals - standards declaimer
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 19 August 2012 23:12:30 UTC