RE: hit testing and retained graphics

The point is not whether these are real apps today, although some of them seem to be for sale. The point is that this is the direction that canvas is going and declaring it "wrong" isn’t going to slow it down. The question is how to make them accessible.

The flip side of the contention then is that since we already have animated gif's and SVG we can get rid of canvas as it is duplicate functionality. Although how we are going to render Swiffy generated SVG content accessible is also something of a concern.

-----Original Message-----
From: Henri Sivonen [] 
Sent: 29 June 2011 15:49
To: Sean Hayes
Cc: E.J. Zufelt; Paul Bakaus; Tab Atkins Jr.; John Foliot; Charles Pritchard; Charles McCathieNevile; Richard Schwerdtfeger; Cameron McCormack; Cynthia Shelly;; Frank Olivier;;;;
Subject: RE: hit testing and retained graphics

On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 14:23 +0000, Sean Hayes wrote:
> It took me 5 minutes to find these examples of people "doing it wrong"


These seem to be remote desktop clients that transfer the screen image
from another system. If <canvas> had the API Rich is proposing, would
you expect these apps to use the remote system accessibility API to
transfer the accessibility API state over? How does Microsoft Remote
Desktop and VNC deal with this with non-Web clients?


This is a game engine demo and doesn't represent GUI apps.


This looks like a demo and not like a serious app that one would spend
time making accessible. It has rather terrible usability even for non-AT
mode of operation.


This looks like something that really ought to be SVG.


These are mainly graphics demos like fractal drawing programs.

Henri Sivonen

Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 15:09:51 UTC