- From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:43:33 -0500
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF7517E0E4.7B400ABB-ON86257881.00717E7E-86257881.0071DA07@us.ibm.com>
Rich Schwerdtfeger CTO Accessibility Software Group Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote on 04/29/2011 03:29:02 PM: > From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> > To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org> > Date: 04/29/2011 03:33 PM > Subject: Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-131 caret-location-api > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger > <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > Rich Schwerdtfeger > > CTO Accessibility Software Group > > > > Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote on 04/29/2011 01:47:47 PM: > > > >> From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> > >> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS > >> Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org> > >> Date: 04/29/2011 01:49 PM > >> Subject: Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-131 caret-location-api > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger > >> <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > Rich Schwerdtfeger > >> > CTO Accessibility Software Group > >> > > >> > Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote on 04/29/2011 12:42:23 PM: > >> > > >> >> From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> > >> >> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS > >> >> Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> > >> >> Date: 04/29/2011 12:43 PM > >> >> Subject: Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-131 caret-location-api > >> >> > >> >> Richard, > >> >> > >> >> I will send a technical reply on list as well, but I really don't > >> >> appreciate the contents of the below email. > >> >> > >> >> You start out by accusing me of "speaking out of both sides of [my] > >> >> mouth". I have no idea what this accusation is based on? If you > >> >> really truly believe that is the case, then you better provide more > >> >> to substantiate this accusation. > >> >> > >> > Yes. Does Firefox support cookies? Cookies are vehicle for > >> > fingerprinting. > >> > That is acceptable but blink rate is not? To me that says you are > >> > speaking > >> > outside both sides of your face. The use of cookies is far worse for > >> > fingerprinting than a user's blink rate. > >> > >> First off, I recommend that you read the other replies in this thread > >> about fingerprinting as they explain the relationship between > >> fingerprinting and cookies. The gist of it is that browsers are aware > >> that the set of cookies the user has is something that identifies > >> him/her on the web. Thus the browser can manage that identity, for > >> example using features like private browsing. Statistical > >> fingerprinting however, is not something we can manage. > >> > > I understand the issue but nobody is removing the problem and as I said not > > everyone pays attention to the private browsing features, especially > > seniors. > > I have a hard time understanding what you are saying. Of course not > everyone cares about privacy, just like not everyone cares about > accessibility. How does that matter? > I am simply saying that private browsing features are inadequate, in eliminating the privacy issue. I used seniors as an example. > >> Second, cookies were invented a long time ago, way before anyone had > >> privacy on the web in mind. If we were to design them today we'd do it > >> significantly differently. We're going through great pains to try to > >> fix them now without breaking the web to the extent that no-one would > >> use our browser. > >> > > I understand that too. I really do understand all your justification for why > > you don't remove cookies. However, I do not think that blink rate comes > > should be elevated to the level of fingerprinting that is already allowed by > > cookies. > > It's not, I never said it was. I'm just saying that i'm opposed to add > it to Firefox given that the value vs. cost ratio is so bad. Included > in that cost is the cost to privacy. > We could go back and forth on this forever. How about we get back to the question of implementation. Will Mozilla implement the canvas accessibility features proposed for caret/selection? > >> >> Next you're putting up straw men: "leaving canvas without the > >> >> ability to enter *any* text accessibly is unacceptable". Surely > >> >> canvas text accessibility doesn't stand and fall with the ability to > >> >> use the exact same blink rate as the platform. The only result of > >> >> not having access to the platform blink rate is having to draw a > >> >> cursor which blinks at a different speed than the platform. This is > >> >> at worst an annoyance to the user. I'm not even sure that this is a > >> >> accessibility issue *at all*, but I could very well be wrong on > >> >> that. Explanations appreciated. > >> >> > >> > > >> > I am reading the following text from you: > >> > > >> >> 1. I don't want people to write text editors using canvas. They are > >> >> bound to get a lot of things resulting in worse user experience for > >> >> users. *Especially* for users that use AT. > >> >> 2. It's not worth the engineering time needed. Weeding through the > >> >> various platform APIs on which firefox runs to try to get at this > >> >> information is non-trivial. The time could be spent on features that > >> >> help users more. > >> > > >> > I am reading that you do not want to support carets/selection > >> > positioning or > >> > blink rates. > >> > > >> > I am quite sure Mozilla already accesses the Windows registry, Mac OSX > >> > property files, etc. So, why is this a huge piece of engineering? > >> > > >> >> To follow that up you accuse me of "using people with a disability > >> >> as a tool to achieve the goal". This claim is again wholly > >> >> unsubstantiated and quite insulting. > >> >> > >> > My reading of the above statements is that you feel it is not worth the > >> > effort to add caret tracking support as you do not feel it is not worth > >> > the > >> > engineering time to support the work. Yet, authors have and continue to > >> > add > >> > text editing features to canvas. So, people with limited or no vision > >> > would > >> > be precluded from accessing these applications but you are I are not. > >> > So, to > >> > me the only vehicle you have for discouraging this behavior is to > >> > preclude > >> > people with these impairments from access. I am sure you have not > >> > intended > >> > it that way but that is the what you are saying, whether you like it or > >> > not. > >> > >> You are reading wrong. No where in that email am I talking about > >> selection positioning. Only caret blink rate. And in the other email I > >> sent shortly after I'm even discussion adding *more* APIs to manage > >> selections and focus. Turns out that what I was proposing is what you > >> had already proposed. > >> > >> I'd appreciate if you read my emails before throwing pretty grave > >> accusations at me. > >> > >> >> This accusation comes up again later: "all attempts to make [canvas] > >> >> accessible have been fought by WhatWG members". I strongly doubt > >> >> that anyone in whatwg has been fighting the idea of making canvas > >> >> accessible. What I can believe is that there are differences in > >> >> opinion about how to make canvas accessible. But that is not the > >> >> picture you are painting. > >> >> > >> > We have been fought on every issue to make canvas accessible from: > >> > > >> > - caret tracking to selection position tracking because browser > >> > manufacturers don't want to support rich text editing. > >> > - blink rate exposure > >> > - accessible sub tree (although there now) > >> > - Clickable regions to support bounding rectangles > >> > - text baseline > >> > > >> > I think that about covers all of it. > >> > >> Again, I doubt that anyone has said that they don't want accessible > >> canvas. All the debates I have seen has been about how to archive > >> accessibility. Designing good features for the web is hard. Reasonable > >> people will disagree how to do it. I think that I can safely say that > >> for every single web feature I've seen designed, people have disagreed > >> on how to do it. That doesn't mean that people have different goals, > >> just that they have different opinions on how to reach them. > >> Accessibility is no different in this regard. > >> > >> I feel that it's very unfortunate that you are insisting on > >> interpreting me (and apparently people on the whatwg list) in the > >> worst possible way. The web will suffer from it. > >> > > So, what is your position on implementing the canvas accessibilityfeatures? > > > > Jonas, I don't have time to keep working on canvas accessibility if all the > > work is going to go in the bit bucket. I just as soon remove canvas and work > > on SVG. Mozilla has been the lead implementer of the Web 2.0 accessibility > > work, like ARIA. If you don't want to do the work I don't see any reason in > > proceeding. We need your help. > > I don't understand why you keep asking this? I have never said > anything about not wanting to implement any other accessibility > features. And you still haven't explained why cursor blink rate even > is an accessibility feature. > > I understand if working on web features is frustrating, it is a lot of > work. We all put in a lot of effort, much of it wasted, some of it > not. > > Yes, in general I'm for implementing accessiblity features in firefox. > As I am implementing other features. It's hard to give a stronger > statement than that given how generally you're asking the question. > I'm always opposed to generating bad features, even if they are bad > accessibility features. > > I'm also strongly opposed getting accused in the manner you did in > your original email in this thread and which you still haven't > retracted any of. > > / Jonas
Received on Friday, 29 April 2011 20:44:11 UTC