- From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:26:55 +0900
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>
- Cc: "mark@w3.org" <mark@w3.org>, "schwer@us.ibm.com" <schwer@us.ibm.com>, "dbolter@mozilla.com" <dbolter@mozilla.com>, "dmazzoni@chromium.org" <dmazzoni@chromium.org>, "franko@microsoft.com" <franko@microsoft.com>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "janina@rednote.net" <janina@rednote.net>
Hi Rik, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>, 2013-09-29 19:15 +0000: > Hi Mike, > > that conversation was specifically about the path object, not focus rings. > The APIs that takes path objects are not implemented and are on the at-risk list. ah, OK. Sorry, I should have read more carefully. --Mike > ________________________________________ > From: Michael[tm] Smith [mike@w3.org] > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 10:03 AM > To: Rik Cabanier > Cc: mark@w3.org; schwer@us.ibm.com; dbolter@mozilla.com; dmazzoni@chromium.org; franko@microsoft.com; public-html-a11y@w3.org; janina@rednote.net > Subject: Re: FW: update to at risk features in Canvas > > Hi again Rik, > > I note that in a related discussion, you wrote: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Sep/0049.html > > 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. > > I think updating the spec might also mean the spec gets changed in a way > that makes it no longer meet the original requirements that were put > forward. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But I think that if in fact > the updated spec were not a solution for the original requirements, then > that should be made clear (so that the requirements can be revisited, or > whatever). At the very least it needs to be made clear that the only > existing implementation we of this at this point does not actually follow > the current spec. > > --Mike > > "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, 2013-09-30 01:15 +0900: > > > Hi Rik, > > > > Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>, 2013-09-29 08:54 -0700: > > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > I'm unsure why you say that. > > > Feedback from Dominic was that DrawCustomFocusRing could be renamed so it is less confusing. > > > > It seems to me the reason for the renaming suggestion was not just to make > > it less confusing but because it's actually not itself drawing a custom focus > > ring at all, and is not even ensuring at all that one will actually be drawn. > > > > Am I wrong about that? > > > > > Also, the step "If the user has requested the use of particular focus > > > rings" can't be implemented because browsers don't provide special code > > > like this. However, I don't see a "must" there and there's no reason that > > > could not implement this. > > > > > > I've been working on this feature in Firefox. It's has the same > > > functionality as the code in Chrome (draw a ring around the path using > > > the browser focus style + notify the accessibility code of the focus > > > region). > > > I hope to have a patch with non-flaky tests later today. > > > > Does that actually meet the original requirement that was stated for > > drawing custom focus rings, or is it doing something different? > > > > --Mike > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org<mailto:mike@w3.org>> > > > Date: Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 7:12 AM > > > Subject: Re: update to at risk features in Canvas > > > To: Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org<mailto:mark@w3.org>> > > > Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com<mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com>>, dbolter@mozilla.com<mailto:dbolter@mozilla.com>, Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@chromium.org<mailto:dmazzoni@chromium.org>>, franko@microsoft.com<mailto:franko@microsoft.com>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com<mailto:cabanier@gmail.com>>, HTML A11Y TF Public <public-html-a11y@w3.org<mailto:public-html-a11y@w3.org>>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net<mailto:janina@rednote.net>> > > > > > > > > > It seems to me like another question that needs to be asked at this point > > > is whether the requirement for custom focus rings need to be completely > > > reconsidered at this point. To me at least, the implementor feedback that's > > > some back from Dominic so far seems to indicate that the requirement may > > > not be practically implementable in browsers at all, and that the only > > > related thing that is actually implementable is the mechanism that Dominic > > > has discussed -- which as I understand it is essentially just a sort of > > > notification to AT. > > > > > > --Mike > > > > > > Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org<mailto:mark@w3.org>>, 2013-09-26 14:54 -0400: > > > > > > > On 9/26/13 12:50 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Mark, > > > > > > > > > > If that requires 2 implementations by the end of this year I cannot > > > > > guarantee it. > > > > > > > > We agreed to have a "clear path to implementation" for Custom focus rings by the end of the year, with testable implementations by end of Q1 2014. Do you guys think this is achievable? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. They won't allow Safari to count as a second implementation and I have > > > > > not heard of any webkit plans so even if they do implement it, it won't > > > > > matter. > > > > > 2. IE won't share anything that they are doing > > > > > 3. Firefox does not have a person assigned yet. > > > > > > > > Having a person assigned would count toward having a "clear path to implemenation" as long as there is a paper trail of progress being made. > > > > > > > > In your opinion, does dropping support for Dashes[1], text metrics [2] or ellipse() [3] have a negative impact on accessibility. > > > > > > > > We talked about pushing support for Path (or an alternative) to the next version of Canvas, but what about Hit Regions [4]? > > > > > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas/#dom-context-2d-setlinedash > > > > [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas/#textmetrics > > > > [3] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas/#dom-context-2d-ellipse > > > > [4] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas/#hit-regions > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this point we have drawSystemFocusRing fully implemented in Chrome > > > > > Canary only. If Sam pushes canvas out the door without at least this then > > > > > low vision users will be without access to canvas. I have done everything I > > > > > can thus far to try to get these two implementations moving. W3C should not > > > > > ship the canvas spec with out some means to provide location information. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Rich > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rich Schwerdtfeger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org<mailto:mark@w3.org>> > > > > > To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, > > > > > Date: 09/26/2013 11:36 AM > > > > > Subject: update to at risk features in Canvas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Rich, > > > > > > > > > > In the HTML WG telecon today, we became aware that the document we were > > > > > asked to review regarding what was at risk in Canvas was not entirely > > > > > accurate and that there are a couple of new sections that are also at risk. > > > > > Could you review this and let me know if we should be concerned with any of > > > > > these being dropped: > > > > > > > > > > * Path object in Canvas > > > > > * Hit regions > > > > > * Dashes > > > > > * Text metrics > > > > > * Ellipse > > > > > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/HTML5.0AtRiskFeatures > > > > > > > > > > We have asked to extend the time given to November to provide feedback. > > > > > They are considering that request. > > > > > > > > > > We also agreed to the following: > > > > > > > > > > RubyS: the plan would then be to mark custom focus ring to be at risk at > > > > > this time, seek plans in 4Q 2013 for implementations in 1Q2014. If this > > > > > function isn't implemented in 1Q2014, it will be removed at that time. > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you have any questions regarding any of this. Enjoy > > > > > your vacation! > > > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike > > > > > > > -- > > Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike > > > > > > -- > Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike > > > > -- Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Monday, 30 September 2013 04:27:08 UTC