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

Re: Issue 131

From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:38:11 -0500
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Cc: david.bolter@gmail.com, mjs@apple.com, public-canvas-api@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF970DDA8A.32FD66AB-ON8625790D.00505305-8625790D.0050666F@us.ibm.com>

Yes, I had forgotten that. Thank you for clarifying.

Rich Schwerdtfeger
CTO Accessibility Software Group

From:	Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
To:	Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Cc:	mjs@apple.com, david.bolter@gmail.com,
            public-canvas-api@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org
Date:	09/15/2011 01:36 PM
Subject:	Re: Issue 131

To be clear, I just meant that Tab was OK with the textBaseline part of the

I did not receive feedback on the focus ring changes.

On 9/15/2011 10:58 AM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
      Tab Atkins seems OK with the text baseline proposal,
      as I ran it by the WHATWG mailing lists.

      The primary change with drawFocusRing is to ensure that the
      accessibility information
      is shared earlier in the process. There were conditions where a focus
      ring would be drawn,
      but the AT may not be notified. This was likely just a spec error,
      as, the focus ring is often
      tied into the accessibility tree, and would share it with the AT

      Good luck with this. Hopefully we'll see the WHATWG spec merge back
      with the W3C spec next year.


      On 9/15/2011 10:17 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:


            I created a Change Proposal to address the separation of
            DrawFocusRing into two methods and provided additional
            information pertaining the chairs had requested for text
            baseline. I tried to use as much as I felt was correct from the
            changes Ian made to the WhatWg spec., including the way he
            allowed for AT to be integrated with the browser as we will see
            with Chrome going forward. I felt there were some problems with
            Ian's spec. which I did not enumerate as the change proposal is
            written against the W3C spec.:

            - He assumed that all fallback contented needed to support the
            canvas element would need to be descendant of the canvas
            element. There will be times, such as hidden context menus,
            where content may reside hidden at the end of the DOM as
            transparent fallback content.
            - Ian's change still allowed the condition in
            drawCustomFocusRing such that if a system setting was not
            available to draw a focus ring in a certain style that the
            function could return allowing the author to create a new path
            for the focus ring with different styling. The new path may not
            match the path passed to browser and thus the magnification
            - drawCustomFocusRing should draw a custom focus ring and not
            adhere to system settings for styling as it is a custom focus
            ring. We have provided a drawStandardFocusRing function.

            Please provide feedback before take this to a more formal
            change proposal submittal. Charles Pritchard tried to get Ian
            to give feedback on the changes to DrawFocusRing on the WhatWg
            discussion list for weeks but received no response.


            Thanks you,


            Rich Schwerdtfeger
            CTO Accessibility Software Group

(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

Received on Friday, 16 September 2011 14:39:03 UTC

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