- 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