- From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 18:25:37 -0600
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF49905667.268CA355-ON862576C1.008323EE-862576C2.0002585C@us.ibm.com>
David gave consensus agreement in a vote we had on Monday. David had second
thoughts and expressed them to me today. It happens and is part of the
process of solving problems. Don't assume that I manufactured statements
from members, Jonas, because David has concerns about a proposal after the
fact. That is not consistent with W3C process and I don't operate that way.
Earlier this week we started working on design issues around using
<accessible> and I spoke with David today. We are looking for an
alternative way, to having an <accessible> DOM within <canvas>, to make
canvas directly accessible as many users would prefer this approach. It
does not mean that fallback content would be used to do this. David said he
would be doing prototype work on his approach for next week. Make no
mistake about it that making canvas directly accessible has its challenges
but it can be done using the <accessible> DOM approach in many instances.
We agreed that we can't just afford to punt on the concept of a directly
accessible <canvas> as too many end users will want to have this. In HTML
4.01 the W3C made similar errors with JavaScript and CSS and said you had
to be accessible with either technology turned off. Developers were saddled
with these handcuffs for over a decade. HTML 5 is too important to industry
to have these restrictions again. You will find that I tend to put options
into developers hands to make things accessible vs. sticking my head in the
sand on it, which in my mind was how we addressed JavaScript accessibility.
To give you an example of what I am talking about regarding how developers
might use canvas, I was in a meeting with IBM research on HTML 5 and the
first words out of their mouths was: Canvas is great and we can now take
HTML controls and render them using a canvas UI. I am not saying that I am
in favor of that approach but I am realistic in knowing that if there is a
way to be creative a developer will do it.
Rich
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist
Jonas Sicking
<jonas@sicking.cc
> To
Richard
02/04/2010 05:18 Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
PM cc
Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>,
"public-html@w3.org"
<public-html@w3.org>,
public-html-request@w3.org
Subject
Re: Integration of HTM
Hi Richard,
So I talked with David Bolter about his feelings regarding this proposal.
Apparently he has expressed concern about the complexity of this proposal
and did not back up the statement that this had "agreement from the Mozilla
accessibility people".
He had however agreed to look at implementing a prototype of this proposal.
/ Jonas
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
I have agreement from the Mozilla accessibility people and the Apple
accessibility people who actually attend the calls and do the work.
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist
Inactive hide details for Jonas Sicking ---02/04/2010 11:05:59 AM---On
Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger < schJonas Sicking
---02/04/2010 11:05:59 AM---On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Richard
Schwerdtfeger < schwer@us.ibm.com
Jon
as
Sic
kin
g To
<jo
nas Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
@si
cki cc
ng.
cc> Ian Hickson <?ian@hixie.ch>, "?,
public-html@w3.org" <
public-html@w3.org>,
02/ public-html-request@w3.org
04/
201 Subject
0
11: Re: Integration of HTM
05
AM
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <,schwer@us.ibm.com
> wrote:
Ian,
The group has heard your comments. We don't agree with you. I am
not going to have another email discussion dragged into the weeds
like what has happened on summary. I think we have had adequate
discussion on the topic and this will be part of the proposal we go
forward with.
We have agreement from Apple, Microsoft, IBM, and Mozilla and we
are working on an implementation.
Please note that there is no such thing as "agreement from Mozilla". The
mozilla community is composed of individuals that often differ in
opinion. In matters of web standards we usually don't form an "official
mozilla position" or any thing like that. So while there very well might
be people at mozilla that support this proposal, it is not "agreement
from Mozilla".
Personally I have the same reaction as Ian.
I'll also note that Maciej is from Apple and appears not to like this
proposal either. However I don't know what Apples policy is on these
things.
Best Regards,
Jonas Sicking
Mozilla
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
- image/gif attachment: pic03382.gif
- image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif
Received on Saturday, 6 February 2010 00:26:21 UTC