Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-131: caret-location-api by Amicable Resolution

Agreed:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0395.html

- Sam Ruby

On 08/31/2012 03:02 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> Your text:
>
>  >  > Given that no active proposals remain, the chairs are now asking if
>  >  > there is consensus to roll back the *hit testing** proposal* and
> to defer
>  >  > the feature to HTML.next.  If anybody would like to raise an objection
>  >  > during this time, we will require them to accompany their
> objection with
>  >  > a concrete and complete change proposal.
>
> You refer to rolling back to the "hit testing" proposal. Issue 131 has
> to do with caret/selection processing and not hit testing.
>
> We should not roll back the hit testing proposal, Ted, Frank, and I
> agreed on, until html.next. We need these changes in HTML5. Frank and I
> both agreed to defer the caret/selection proposal for later discussion
> in html.next.
>
> You may have inadvertently put the two together. The hit testing
> proposal refers to Issue 201. I was trying to clarify the two for the
> chairs.
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
> Inactive hide details for Sam Ruby ---08/31/2012 11:59:52 AM---I'm
> confused. I'll quote what the subject of this call for consSam Ruby
> ---08/31/2012 11:59:52 AM---I'm confused.  I'll quote what the subject
> of this call for consensus  was on (the same text appears
>
> From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
> Cc: Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG"
> <public-html@w3.org>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org"
> <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, jbrewer@w3.org, janina@rednote.net
> Date: 08/31/2012 11:59 AM
> Subject: Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-131: caret-location-api by Amicable Resolution
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I'm confused.  I'll quote what the subject of this call for consensus
> was on (the same text appears later in the very note that you forwarded):
>
>  >> On 08/02/2012 12:59 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>  >>
>  >>> */For these reasons I would ask that the chairs move issue 131 to
>  >>> HTML.next
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> On 08/31/2012 12:09 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>  > Chairs -
>  >
>  > I object to moving the hit testing proposal, we agreed on, until
>  > html.next. While there is not sufficient use of rich text editing on
>  > canvas today, low vision users MUST be able to zoom to any drawing
>  > object on a canvas as at large magnification levels a low vision user
>  > will not be able to zoom to these drawing objects, as they are off
>  > screen, without knowledge of their location. Users must be able to do
>  > this without moving they keyboard focus much the same way you and I
>  > visually browse a web page. This problem is exacerbated if the user also
>  > has a mobility impairment as their alternative input assistive
>  > technology must be able to locate the objects to move to them.
>  > Furthermore, a screen reader user uses this information to construct
>  > their virtual model of the screen for browsing and it is essential in
>  > order to construct a Braille user interface. The provision of screen
>  > location information of objects is a fundamental feature of
>  > accessibility API on every operating system platform. Not having this
>  > feature severely harm a low vision users ability to access canvas.
>  >
>  > This change also meets the need to provide an a mainstream value add
>  > without additional accessibility API work required by the author.
>  >
>  > Although the chairs seemingly have tied the two issues together they are
>  > indeed separate.
>  >
>  > Issue 131 has to do with caret tracking and selecting of rich text
>  > content, by a magnifier, while a low vision person is editing text to be
>  > able to zoom around the point of regard. Given the limited used of rich
>  > text editing in canvas it was acceptable to move this to html.next.
>  >
>  > I hope the reason for my objection is clear and that the chairs now
>  > understand why the two issues must be separated.
>  >
>  > Rich Schwerdtfeger
>  >
>  > Inactive hide details for Sam Ruby ---08/31/2012 07:04:10 AM---On
>  > 08/22/2012 09:07 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On 08/02/2012 12:59 PMSam Ruby
>  > ---08/31/2012 07:04:10 AM---On 08/22/2012 09:07 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On
>  > 08/02/2012 12:59 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>  >
>  > From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
>  > To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, "public-html@w3.org WG"
>  > <public-html@w3.org>,
>  > Cc: Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>,
>  > "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
>  > Date: 08/31/2012 07:04 AM
>  > Subject: Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-131: caret-location-api by Amicable
> Resolution
>  >
>  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > On 08/22/2012 09:07 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>  >  > On 08/02/2012 12:59 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>  >  >>
>  >  >> */For these reasons I would ask that the chairs move issue 131 to
>  >  >> HTML.next and save proposal
>  >  >>
> /*http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/CaretSelectionRevised*/
>  >  >> for
>  >  >> review at that time. This will give more time for canvas,
>  >  >> contenteditable, web-based IME support, and cross-cutting
> accessibility
>  >  >> support to develop and mature. If the chairs agree to then I would
>  >  >> support the chairs decision for HTML5 as a temporary one requiring
>  >  >> greater view in the next version, otherwise I will need to formally
>  >  >> object to the chairs decision.
>  >  >
>  >  > We previously vacated the original issue 131 decision, reopened the
>  >  > issue, and allowed changes to be made:
>  >  >
>  >  > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Dec/0059.html
>  >  >
>  >  > Now Richard is asking that we effectively consider his proposal
>  >  > withdrawn for the HTML5 time frame.  Frank has also agreed to postpone
>  >  > this to HTML.next:
>  >  >
>  >  > http://www.w3.org/2012/08/16-html-wg-minutes.html#item09
>  >  >
>  >  > Given that no active proposals remain, the chairs are now asking if
>  >  > there is consensus to roll back the hit testing proposal and to defer
>  >  > the feature to HTML.next.  If anybody would like to raise an objection
>  >  > during this time, we will require them to accompany their
> objection with
>  >  > a concrete and complete change proposal.
>  >  >
>  >  > If no objections are raised to this call by August 30th, 2012, we will
>  >  > direct the editors to make the proposed change, and will only consider
>  >  > subsequently reopening this issue based on new information and a
>  >  > complete change proposal based on the spec's contents as it exists
> after
>  >  > this change is applied.
>  >  >
>  >  > - Sam Ruby
>  >  >
>  >  > Note: while the process for HTML.next has not been determined, people
>  >  > are welcome to publish proposals for what the spec should look
> like, and
>  >  > should any Working Group member chose to do so, we will make
> provisions
>  >  > to publish same on the W3C site (alongside any other proposals
> that may
>  >  > be made)
>  >
>  > Hearing no objections, this call passes.  Issue 131 will now be closed.
>  >
>  > - Sam Ruby
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>

Received on Friday, 31 August 2012 19:22:57 UTC