- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:48:05 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > Hixie pointed out to me that my canvas code was totally wrong. Here is > a better description of what I mean: > > The current (pre applying WG decision) syntax: > > // Example A > cx.beginPath(); > cx.rect(x,y,w,h); > cx.drawFocusRing(elem); > > This would draw a OS-styled focus ring on the coordinates x,y,w,h as > well as tell AT that focus is currently located at those coordinates > as to enable it to magnify that part of the screen if desired. > > What I'm proposing is that we enable the following syntax *as well*: > > // Example B > cx.beginPath(); > cx.rect(x,y,w,h); > cx.drawFocusRing(elem); > cx.setCaretSelectionRect(elem,x-10,y-10,w+20,h+20); > > This would draw the focus ring on the coordinates x,y,w,h but tell AT > that a somewhat larger area is what needs to be magnified. > > However, if someone just writes the code as in example A, it would > still inform AT that x,y,w,h is the area that should be magnified. > I.e. authors will *by default* get AT behavior that will work in most > cases, while still allowing advanced authors can opt in and override > that behavior using the more powerful feature set. > > We could possibly also add an additional boolean argument to > drawFocusRing that tells the function to *just* draw the focus right, > but not inform AT of a new magnification area. But I'm less sure that > that is a feature that anyone has requested. As far as I can tell, this is exactly what the patch I proposed to implement the decision that the chairs made does. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 29 April 2011 18:48:29 UTC