W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > March 2014

RE: Canvas Sub-Group Meeting Scheduled [Monday: 17 MAR 2014]

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 18:35:20 +0000
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org>
CC: Canvas <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, HTML A11Y TF Public <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net)" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Jay Munro <jaymunro@microsoft.com>, "Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, "Richard Schwerdtfeger" <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <137247d1b00040ce9d221e0a933076f0@BY2PR02MB363.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Paul,

We're trying to whittle down the hitRegion interface so 
- it satisfies a11y's use cases
- it is forward compatible with the full interface
- it has enough functionality so browsers will accept it

By reading the spec more closely, it's becoming apparent that it's underspecified and people have different ideas on what it's supposed to do (especially in the area of event handling).
I'm not all that hopeful that this will come to a non-controversial conclusion in the short term.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Cotton [mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 11:11 AM
To: Mark Sadecki
Cc: Canvas; HTML A11Y TF Public; Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net); Jay Munro; Philippe Le Hegaret; Rik Cabanier; Jatinder Mann; Richard Schwerdtfeger
Subject: RE: Canvas Sub-Group Meeting Scheduled [Monday: 17 MAR 2014]

What is the status of these discussions?  I cannot tell from the minutes when the sub-group thinks it will have a revised Canvas LC draft ready for the A11Y TF and WG to approve?


Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Sadecki [mailto:mark@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 7:28 AM
To: Jay Munro; Philippe Le Hegaret; Rik Cabanier (cabanier@adobe.com); Jatinder Mann; Richard Schwerdtfeger
Cc: Canvas; HTML A11Y TF Public
Subject: Re: Canvas Sub-Group Meeting Scheduled [Monday: 17 MAR 2014]

On 3/18/14, 12:10 AM, Jay Munro wrote:
> Hi all,
> I got this note from Jacob Rossi, one of our PMs who reviewed the spec. Some food for thought.
> *         Accessing regions by a string ID seems like a clumsy API and requires me to keep my own model that tracks the regions and their IDs.
>         o   Also the ID is optional, meaning some hit regions could be lost forever?
>         o   I'd actually recommend just scrapping the ID concept altogether and focus on the control nodes. In fact, add/RemoveHitRegion() could just take a control as the only arg. If you want an ID, just use the ID attribute on the control node.
>                  If IDs were scrapped, then the MouseEvent.region extension isn't needed. This would be my preference.
> *         ID string is listed as optional, control is not. But yet from the algorithm for addHitRegion(), it seems control is also optional?
> *         The argument type for add/removeHitRegion(), HitRegionOptions, is not defined anywhere in the spec. I think this should be a dictionary type most likely.
> *         There doesn't seem to be a way to access the collection of added hit regions. I'd expect something like context.regions to expose a collection of the added regions.
> o   E.g. it currently seems I have to remove and add a hit region if I just want to update it. Perhaps it's felt this isn't needed in an immediate-mode graphics API?
> *         Spec should also handle PointerEvents too!

Thanks for sharing this, Jay.  I have added it to the agenda for next week [1].
 I also encourage discussion on list.

[1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Canvas#Next_Agenda



Mark Sadecki
Web Accessibility Engineer
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
Telephone: +1.617.715.4017
Email: mark@w3.org
Web: http://w3.org/People/mark
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2014 18:35:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:56:38 UTC