- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:16:02 +0100
- To: "Janina Sajka" <janina@rednote.net>
- Cc: cooper@w3.org, "Richard Schwerdtfeger" <schwer@us.ibm.com>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, public-html-a11y@w3.org, mike@w3.org
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 01:05:00 +0100, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: > Chaas and All: > > It seems to me this disagreement would benefit mightily from some > telecon time. So, I'm putting it on the agenda for Thursday's TF call. > I'm assuming, Chaas, you can make that? Please advise. I'm not yet sure, and won't know until almost the time of the telecon :( I have a pretty heavy schedule for the next two weeks ;( But I will try. cheers Chaals > Janina > > Charles McCathieNevile writes: >> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:24:24 +0100, Richard Schwerdtfeger >> <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> >> >Please create a straw poll to discuss on Thursday. The group feels it >> has >> >addressed the adom accessibility compliance confusion with this >> proposal >> >and also the default for keyboard navigation made at the last html task >> >force meeting. Members must vote on this by the end of Wednesday >> >so that we can review the results Thursday. >> >> I vote against this (I don't really see how it is different to the >> adom proposal in substance). >> >> I have been reading the draft again, revision $Revision: 1.3865 $. >> >> As I understand it, currently the draft requires the fallback >> content to be navigable when the canvas is being rendered. >> >> [[[ >> In interactive visual media, if scripting is enabled for the canvas >> element, and if support for canvas elements has been enabled, the >> canvas element represents embedded content consisting of a >> dynamically created image. >> >> In non-interactive, static, visual media, if the canvas element has >> been previously painted on (e.g. if the page was viewed in an >> interactive visual medium and is now being printed, or if some >> script that ran during the page layout process painted on the >> element), then the canvas element represents embedded content with >> the current image and size. Otherwise, the element represents its >> fallback content instead. >> >> In non-visual media, and in visual media if scripting is disabled >> for the canvas element or if support for canvas elements has been >> disabled, the canvas element represents its fallback content >> instead. >> >> When a canvas element represents embedded content, the user can >> still focus descendants of the canvas element (in the fallback >> content). This allows authors to make an interactive canvas >> keyboard-focusable: authors should have a one-to-one mapping of >> interactive regions to focusable elements in the fallback content. >> ]]] - http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#canvas >> >> Which suffers from the same problem that this proposal and the adom >> proposal suffer: They all assume that the content of the canvas >> element is the appropriate place to include navigation objects >> required for accessibility, whereas I maintain that it may well be >> the case that some fallback content is not relevant where the canvas >> "represents embedded content" (that's spec-talk for "shows the >> picture") while some content outside the canvas element may well >> form part of the ensemble that makes the canvas accessible. >> >> >This also allow for areamap to be used in the future should a proposal >> >by Chaals be approved for areamap. >> >> (I tested HTML 5's replacement for the HTML 4.01 image map model - >> but on Mac it fails in Firefox as well as Safari and only works in >> Opera. I will continue with the proposal I had) >> >> >The justification for this change is to provide for a focus navigable >> >binding of what is rendered in canvas using standard HTML elements in >> the >> >area currently designated as the fallback content for <canvas> and >> >provides the means for the browser to provide an accessibility API >> >binding based on HTML 5 content. >> >> The proposal is an improvement on the current HTML 5 draft, since it >> allows the author to declare whether or not the canvas subtree >> should be navigable (instead of forcing that to be the case, as per >> the current draft). >> >> However, it doesn't (unlike the proposal to use <usemap> and <map>) >> provide a way of having navigable content of the canvas that >> "disappears" if the fallback content is rendered instead. >> >> It also requires a new attribute, when there is better markup that >> has been around for most of the life of the web, and which has >> already been explained in the last decade's efforts at educating >> authors, coded into authoring tools, and coded into browsers >> (moderately well - Safari is the worst implementation I found: it >> offers the ability to use an image map in a canvas, but without >> block content (or what html5 calls flow content) and I can't find >> out how to navigate any image map by keyboard. Opera 10.50 and >> Firefox 3.6 show every sign of already supporting the test cases I >> am working on, and reportedly IE does too) >> >> cheers >> >> Chaals >> >> -- >> Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group >> je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk >> http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com > -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2010 01:17:20 UTC