W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-canvas-api@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: Agenda: HTML 5 Canvas Accessibility Meeting February 22, 2010

From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:53:09 -0800
Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, David Bolter <david.bolter@gmail.com>, cooper@w3.org, janina@rednote.net, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, cyns@exchange.microsoft.com, Frank Olivier <franko@microsoft.com>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, surkov.alexander@gmail.com
Message-Id: <EE5B4D83-598B-43F8-853D-870701C7441B@apple.com>
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
On Feb 20, 2010, at 12:20 AM, Steven Faulkner wrote:

> how is having this accessible to AT and keyboard only users better for them?
> <canvas>
> your browser does not support canvas get a better <a href="firefox.html">browser</a>.
> </canvas>

A spec will never stop authors from writing bad markup, but an author could just as likely include this:


<canvas>
	<img src="graph.png" alt="Graph demonstrating increasing rainfall over the past five years.">
</canvas>

And forcing AT to look for an @adom flag would mean that this real alternative text would be rendered completely inaccessible.


> What can be predicted (with some confidence I think) is that users will encounter this sort of subtree much more that they will encounter a subtree that is designed to take into account their needs.

And so the proposal is to make all content (well-crafted or not) completely inaccessible by default, just in case it's not useful for the user? I don't follow that logic.
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 17:53:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:49 UTC