Re: Issues the chairs overlooked in their review of the canvas accessibility API proposal for Issue 131

On 04/15/2011 04:01 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> Hi Maciej,
> We have updated the original change request for Issue 131
> ( include:
> - to include the 508 Rationale, etc.
> - to include a clarification the text baseline request. Note: in bug
> report 11239 we made a reference to Webkit code to see how the change
> would apply (Charles Pritchard on 4/13)
> - changed the return value for blink rate from an int to a WebIDL long.
> Ian had mentioned this to be an oversight on one of the discussion groups.
> Hopefully, that will address the chairs' concerns.

Looking at the decision, there is two remaining comments that have not 
been addressed:

> In addition, another objection to this aspect of the "Modify existing
> Canvas 2D API caret and focus ring support" was that it makes focus
> handling and caret selection inconsistent in an undesirable way;
> authors cannot go with all native-style drawing or all custom-drawing
> but would be forced to use a mix

We would like to request that the Change Proposal be updated to either 
showing that there is no inconsistency, or by giving the justification 
for the inconsistency.

Additionally, the following was not found to make its case:

> DrawFocusRing does not ensure that the focus ring, drawn, allows
> the browser to follow focus ring conventions for the OS platform
> that may also reflect user's preferences

Can you clarify why the "Modify existing Canvas 2D API caret and focus 
ring support proposal" makes it impossible to draw focus without driving

- Sam Ruby

Received on Monday, 18 April 2011 21:03:49 UTC