- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:28:46 +0000
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, public-html-a11y@w3.org, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGN7qDBk+GSGg8+a_hwP+cuZv_sru+U2jAHHzebMo1CvESBNZA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Sam, I will work with Rich and Dominic on what we can put on the at-risk list. On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On 09/23/2013 11:12 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> Rich, >> >> yes, an API with the same name was implemented but it is not following >> the spec. >> It doesn't seem like this would pass the bar as an implementation unless >> we update the spec. >> > > Rik (and other canvas editors) and Rich (and other members of the A11y > TF), can you work together to agree on what should be included in a new > Last Call draft? > > Current status: > > The current charter[1] has HTML Canvas 2D Context going to PR in 2013 Q3 > and Rec in 2013 Q4. There is a desire by both the editors and W3C staff to > come as close as possible to meeting these dates. > > There are Canvas features which are known to not be interoperably > implemented at this time which were not called out as at Risk at the time > the previous Last Call draft was published. These features were identified > prior to the Last Call but weren't communicated to all potential reviewers. > > This will require us to put out another Last Call draft. Minimum period > for such would be 6 weeks. > > Such a draft could mark additional features as being at Risk. It could > also remove such features. The danger of removing features is that if it > were later felt necessary to add back in those features, yet another Last > Call would be required. > > My personal recommendation would be to produce a draft which only included > features which are comfortably likely to meet the published Public > Permissive Exit Criteria[2] by 1Q2014, and to defer features which are not > likely to make that date to HTML Canvas 2D Context, Level 2. > > - Sam Ruby > > [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/**charter/2013/#milestones<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2013/#milestones> > [2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/**decision-policy/public-** > permissive-exit-criteria.html<http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/public-permissive-exit-criteria.html> > > Rik >> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger >> <schwer@us.ibm.com <mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com>> wrote: >> >> Paul, Janina, >> >> I was correct in stating that drawCustomFocusRing() was implemented >> in Chrome for both Windows and Mac. So, we have one implementation >> of BOTH drawSystemFocusRing and drawCustomFocusRing(). >> >> As Rik stated, the Path object does not have a full implementation >> and the for Canvas 2 is to introduce a Shape object to support >> magnifier location information. >> >> Rich >> >> >> Rich Schwerdtfeger >> ----- Forwarded by Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM on 09/23/2013 >> 08:38 AM ----- >> >> From: Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@chromium.org >> <mailto:dmazzoni@chromium.org>**> >> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS**, >> Cc: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com <mailto:cabanier@gmail.com>> >> Date: 09/23/2013 01:11 AM >> Subject: Re: >> Sent by: dmazzoni@google.com <mailto:dmazzoni@google.com> >> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------** >> ------------ >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger >> <_schwer@us.ibm.com_ <mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com>> wrote: >> >> Hey Dominic, >> >> When we talked you said you had implemented both >> drawSystemFocusRing and drawCustomFocusRing. I only tested with >> drawSystemFocusRing. >> >> >> That's correct, they're both implemented. >> >> Rik thought there was some problems with the custom focus ring >> function. >> >> Is that still the case and if so what is the concern. Other than >> driving the magnifer I would think this basically involved >> calling stroke(). >> >> >> I'm going by the spec from here: >> _http://www.w3.org/TR/**2dcontext/#dom-context-2d-** >> drawcustomfocusring_<http://www.w3.org/TR/2dcontext/#dom-context-2d-drawcustomfocusring_>- >> let me know if that isn't the correct document. Here's what it says >> for step three of drawCustomFocusRing. >> >> /3. If the user has requested the use of particular focus rings >> (e.g. high-contrast focus rings), then draw a focus ring of the >> appropriate style along the intended path, and set result to false./ >> >> As best as I can determine, no operating system exposes such a >> preference for high-contrast focus rings. Assistive technology like >> ZoomText or MAGic just draw their own additional focus rings, they >> don't tell applications to draw high-contrast focus rings. While in >> theory it's possible for a browser to add that as a user preference, >> there are no plans to do so at this time. Because of all this, it >> seems like this part of the spec isn't currently useful and should >> be removed. >> >> So, given that such a preference never exists, Chrome never draws >> anything when you call drawCustomFocusRing. It just updates >> assistive technology and returns false every time. >> >> It's still useful - but the name no longer makes sense. Something >> like notifyFocusRingPath might make more sense. >> >> I don't understand why we would ever call stroke() - can you explain >> how that's implied by the spec? >> >> - Dominic >> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 21:09:22 UTC