Re: Issue-74/Action-133 canvas-accessibility and ISSUE-15 immediate-mode-graphics [was: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-08-13]

In addition to Dan's comments...

I have received a progress report from one of the Apple accessibility  
experts who attended the telecon on <canvas> accessibility. Based on  
what I heard from him, I believe good progress is being made, and the  
proposal might be able to avoid large changes to canvas. We should ask  
the task force working on a proposal if they need any technical  
assistance from <canvas> experts, and if that would enable them to  
pull in the due date.


On Aug 12, 2009, at 8:47 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> Please let's take care with subject lines... this
> isn't about the telconference agenda...
> On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 10:23 -0500, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>> Issue-74/Action-133 canvas-accessibility
>>> This item is not due this week, but I'm choosing to flag it at this
>>> time as it as a target date of 2009-12-17 which would preclude us  
>>> for
>>> going to Last Call this year.  I'd like to put out a call for
>>> volunteers: if there is anybody out there with an interest and  
>>> ability
>>> to help pull this date in, I would like to ask that they step  
>>> forward.
>> One suggestion I have on this, and yes I know this was based on a
>> previous vote, is that we re-consider whether to keep the Canvas  
>> element
>> in HTML 5, or to spin it off, either into a new working group, or
>> potential future working group.
>> I know that folks wanted this item covered by _some_ working group,  
>> but
>> canvas accessibility issues could end up holding back the entire  
>> HTML 5
>> document, because canvas accessibility isn't going to be a quick fix,
>> not from what I can see. In addition, tying the element to the HTML 5
>> will hinder future innovation.
>> Frankly, the HTML 5 specification is already overly large, and the  
>> 5 object, other than the element tag, really doesn't fit in with a
>> specification titled "HTML" anything.
>> Is there any possibility that this one could be raised to a new  
>> item, or
>> be reconsidered?
> Whether to include an immediate-mode graphics API is the one
> technical issue this WG has actually decided:
> ISSUE-15 immediate-mode-graphics proposal carries over objections
> So we can only reconsider that if there's new information.
> That the HTML 5 spec is big is not new information.
> Nor are accessibility concerns around canvas; discussion
> of that goes back at least as far as Apr 2007
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 18:55:33 UTC