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

RE: hit testing and retained graphics

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Jonas Sicking'" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, <public-html@w3.org>, <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <024601cc3d14$70d306a0$527913e0$@edu>
Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Sorry for replying to an old email here, but this sat in my "drafts"
> folder and I figured I might as well send it.

Hi Jonas,

I'm pretty much staying out of the larger discussion, but you raise some
interesting points.

> For what it's worth, I don't think the disconnect is in if we should
> start with use cases or not. I think the disconnect is between what
> type of feature we're designing and thus the use cases are.

I also think that part of the disconnect is in seeing accessibility
capabilities as a "feature" rather than a foundational requirement. It
seems that with <canvas> we unfortunately missed that need in the initial
deployment phase, so now (it appears to me) we are left with trying to
retro-fit a solution in place. I can appreciate the desire for elegant and
easy solutions, however I don't think we will find one here: Retrofits are
rarely easy, and often quite messy, which is also what I think is
contributing to the discussion. 

> Or, put another way, when working with accessibility for computers, we
> don't try to attack the problem "how do we make computer displays
> accessible", we attack the problem "how do we make microsoft word
> accessible, how do we make the OSX file system browser accessible".

Fair enough. 

How do we make *interactive features* that can be created using <canvas>


Received on Friday, 8 July 2011 02:12:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:10:32 UTC