Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-131 caret-location-api

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger
<schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Nor are our browser accessibility features. That doesn't mean we're
going to give up and do nothing. I'm failing to see your point.

>> >> 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?

I don't even know the whole feature set that is involved with
caret/selection, so I can't say. But the drawFocusRing and
setSelectionCaretRect functions look reasonable to me so as far as I'm
concerned I think we should implement them. But I also don't
understand why you are all of a sudden asking?

And I'm not planning on going back and forth forever. I have more
productive things to do.

/ Jonas

Received on Friday, 29 April 2011 20:56:49 UTC