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

Re: Further example of application/remote applications

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:28:20 -0700
Message-Id: <BBBAC02D-2D5A-414F-957A-2B941C10A126@jumis.com>
Cc: Canvas <public-canvas-api@w3.org>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
I do not think that anyone I've spoken to is opposed to accessibility.

Nor is anyone opposed to i18n; that's a contrast to the general public, where multilingualism can be a contentious issue.

My stress, and perhaps poorly manage communication is about the manner in which accessibility issues are attended to.

Where is my vulnerability disclosure list for a11y? How do I report, quietly, that a vendor has a big hole in their a11y support that they should fix in their next release?

My technical proposal to add a method to canvas 2d, to expose the current path to the accessibility tree (binding it to an object) has not been disagreed with, nor rejected. The "use cases" have been turned down.

I believe all parties are operating in good faith. I want better. I've continued to post use case examples in the hope of proving that the issue is important, and it would be prudent for implementers to address the issue this year.

When that happens, I can move forward with informing the developer community.

-Charles


On Sep 26, 2011, at 5:17 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

> Charles
> 
> I am not getting into the details, but I urge you (and others) not to fall into the trap of painting those who don't immediately agree with your technical proposals as therefore being opposed to accessibility.  It's not true, and it doesn't help.
> 
> On Sep 26, 2011, at 17:13 , Charles Pritchard wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 26, 2011, at 4:50 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sep 26, 2011, at 13:32 , Charles Pritchard wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I urge vendors to re-consider their commitment to Canvas accessibility 
>>> 
>>> Really?  A lot of us are committed to accessibility in all that we do.  Do you really want that changed?
>> 
>> Yes, I want 'a lot of us' changed to -all- of us.
>> 
> 
> I welcome rebuttals to people who say they are not committed.
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 00:28:50 UTC

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