Re: Path to Last Call (was closing various issues)

hi maciaej, thanks for the reply
> But it also seems too soon to declare we don't.

agreed, from my inital reading it looks ok.

>What we loosely referred to as a "shadow DOM" is in fact just the DOM
children of the <canvas>, and can be added with the ordinary DOM APIs. That
part >doesn't need new API at all.

it is the creation of the shadow dom objects that concerns me, if it is the
case that developers are required to create this in addition (just for
accessibility reasons) then it is very likely not going to happen, but if it
had utility beyond just accessibility then it would be used.


>the ones I can imagine include a way to draw a standard focus indicator

agreed, there is a checkpoint in section 508 that covers the essential
characteristics required for what I think is required for focusable rgions
on the canvas object

section 508 1194.21 [1]

(c) A well-defined on-screen indication of the current focus shall be
provided that moves among interactive interface elements as the input focus
changes. The focus shall be programmatically exposed so that Assistive
Technology can track focus and focus changes.
so if the proposed solution privides this then i will be satisfied.


regards
stevef


[1] http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=content&ID=12#Software
2009/8/23 Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>

>
>  On Aug 23, 2009, at 5:07 AM, Steven Faulkner wrote:
>
> Hi maciej,
>
> >I not heard any claims the ARIA integration work done so far is
> insufficient for Last Call.
>
> as far as i can tell the ARIA spec text was only added in the last few
> days, and its presence was not signalled on the html wg or wai-xtech mailing
> lists (unless i missed it)  so it is not surpising little feedback has been
> forthcoming, hopefully the spec text and Ians questions will be discussed in
> this weeks PF meetings.
>
>
> It's definitely too soon to declare that we have consensus - I think I said
> that in the rest of my message. But it also seems too soon to declare we
> don't. I would say the point we're at is that it's now time to review the
> draft, identify issues, and determine if we have consensus. If I understand
> you correctly, I think we're in agreement on this.
>
> In regards to the canvas issues, while i generally agree that good progress
> is being made,
> I may be misunderstanding the discussions so far, but I do not get a sense
> yet that a solution will be forthcoming without some additions to the canvas
> API involving the creation of shadow W3C dom objects and focus management.
>
>
> I believe nearly everything that's needed can be added without API changes, and if API changes are needed, they will be fairly minor. On the specific points you mention: What we loosely referred to as a "shadow DOM"
> is in fact just the DOM children of the <canvas>, and can be added with the
> ordinary DOM APIs. That part doesn't need new API at all. Maybe a demo would
> show this best (working on it.) For focus management, one proposal on the
> table is to simply let descendants of the <canvas> with explicit tabindex
> (including tabindex="0") still receive focus and participate in the tab
> cycle, even though they are not rendered. I'd be glad to explain further
> offline.
>
> It may be that we'll find we need API additions - the ones I can imagine
> include a way to draw a standard focus indicator, and a way to expose a
> caret or selection range in custom-drawn text. I expect we'll learn more
> about what we need from the prototyping/mockup work. My estimation is that
> the additional APIs needed will be modest.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>


-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html