W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-canvas-api@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: hit testing and retained graphics

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 07:29:14 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+ri+Vk3Yb6kRns61ZOr9Rk+q5kXbaZfpiTv8aGSphzhyafYrw@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 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.


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 |
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Sunday, 3 July 2011 06:30:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:10:31 UTC