Re: Canvas 1.0

I can't speak for all of Chrome, but I think we'll get a lot of resistance
to shipping an API that doesn't do what it sounds like it will do.
addHitRegion sounds like it can be used for hit testing - and the whatwg
spec says that's what it should do. I don't think we should add an
interface called addHitRegion that doesn't actually do hit testing.

We renamed drawSystemFocusRing to drawFocusIfNeeded so that the name
matches exactly what it does. Why not do the same thing here?

How about addAccessibleRegion, or just addRegion?

Alternatively, if Mozilla wants to implement hit testing I think there's a
much better chance we could ship that. It would take longer to develop - it
looks a bit tricky - but I think it would be easier to argue for it.

- Dominic

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>wrote:

> Hi Dominic,
>
> We are trying to flush out an agreement for 1.0.
>
> Mozilla has implemented using the HitRegion API to bind the location with
> the fallback element. We are trying to deliver the minimal implementation
> for 1.0 that would allow us to support accessibility. We can't get Path
> done in a reasonable amount of time so we would use the current path. I am
> a bit uncomfortable about not adding actual hit testing. If we were to
> include that in the proposal would that satisfy a meets minimum for you for
> 1.0?
>
> My concern about not having hit testing is mobile touch devices and
> working with AT like VoiceOver and TalkBack with touch. The question is
> should we do this in 1.0 or 2.0. Regardless we will continue to work on
> other features of hit testing API in 2.0 - such as adding Path object
> support.
>
> I suspect we will also require a removehitregion in response to Charles
> later response.
>
> Rich
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for Dominic Mazzoni ---02/24/2014 05:46:19
> PM---Wait, to clarify, addHitRegion would not actually provide]Dominic
> Mazzoni ---02/24/2014 05:46:19 PM---Wait, to clarify, addHitRegion would
> not actually provide hit testing? Is the idea that it'd be adde
>
> From: Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com>
> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
> Cc: Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>,
> Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, Canvas <public-canvas-api@w3.org>
> Date: 02/24/2014 05:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Canvas 1.0
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Wait, to clarify, addHitRegion would not actually provide hit testing?
>
> Is the idea that it'd be added in the next spec revision? It seems odd to
> do this, the feature would ship in a way that doesn't really match the
> original intent of the spec.
>
> I thought Mozilla already implemented some of the actual hit testing
> features.
>
> - Dominic
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <
> *schwer@us.ibm.com* <schwer@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
>
>    Hi Dominic,
>
>    For version of the canvas 1.0 spec. we would like to have the
>    following in the specification.
>
>    1. addHitRegion but only with an optional id and a fallback element to
>    associate the element (this will set the location).   e.g.
>    addHitRegion(id,control) where control would be any fallback element at
>    this time.
>    2. drawFocusIfNeeded but remove the step that sets the location.
>
>    1. This would not provide actual hit testing but it would assign the
>    location at this time
>
>    We would need you to agree and implement this in Chrome now and we
>    would work to address the other additions to the addHitRegion spec. (from
>    WhatWG) in v2.0. We also want your feedback on the spec. changes.
>
>    Rich
>
>    Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
>
>