Re: News from TPac

Rik,

I think if we take drawCustomFocusRing out of the picture we will be much
better off. I would prefer to wait until we have media queries that include
high contrast information to and fold that into the picture when we do L2.
It seems like the bigger technical concerns around that method. With
drawSystemFocusRing we have scrolling to deal with and a name change
(remove the Ring part - big deal).

The drawSystemFocusRing works fine except for the scrolling. Also, if
others were working on an L2 spec., e.g. ellipse, tweaking one method to it
is not a big deal.

Rich



Rich Schwerdtfeger



From:	Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
To:	Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Cc:	Jay Munro <jaymunro@microsoft.com>, Robin Berjon
            <robin@w3.org>, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>,
            "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>
Date:	12/06/2013 01:33 PM
Subject:	Re: News from TPac



You can find Dominic's feedback on this mailing list and the WhatWG one.
Ryosuke's feedback is on webkit-dev (as a reaction to me trying to patch
WebKit). He followed up on WhatWG and was also present at TPAC.

The feedback from a11y was privately during TPAC.


On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
  Are any details about these concerns on the a11y Apis going to be posted
  online?



  -Charles

  On Dec 6, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:

        My biggest fear is that regardless of how quickly we can fix the
        focus ring bugs, people from either side will keep stalling the
        process.

        Dominic from Google has expressed doubts and Ryosuke from Apple was
        very skeptical about the general API.
        In addition, someone from the A11Y team told me that they don't
        like the focus rings and want to redesign everything.

        Given this, I'd rather work on it separately so we're not in the
        same situation 4 months from now.



        On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jay Munro <jaymunro@microsoft.com>
        wrote:
         It would be great to do that. This was an option I heard came up
         at TPAC and I wanted to hear more. The idea of a simple add on
         might take less time, but I'd rather see the full spec get through
         in a few months.

         -----Original Message-----
         From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@w3.org]
         Sent: Friday, December 6, 2013 2:02 AM
         To: Edward O'Connor; public-canvas-api@w3.org
         Subject: Re: News from TPac

         Hi all,

         On 06/12/2013 01:09 , Edward O'Connor wrote:
         > I don't understand why L2 is necessarily a big spec that will
         take a
         > long time. Why not envision an L2 which is exactly the same as
         the
         > "extension (mini) spec" you have in mind? Features that are
         unrelated
         > can wait until L3. The labels we give these specs don't mean
         anything,
         > don't require us to spend more or less time on them, and don't
         imply
         > anything about taking a few months v. a few years to work on
         them.

         What Ted said. There is nothing that says that shipping has to be
         a heavy process. We can ship iterations of Recommendations (or
         CRs, or
         whatever) with just the sort of small delta you mention. Nothing
         wrong with having multiple releases a year if they work.

         --
         Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon