W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Please vote on the canvas accessibility proposal

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:46:56 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02831002222046i6c3a0829v4763bd2ddebfc068@mail.gmail.com>
To: Frank Olivier <franko@microsoft.com>
Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>, Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>, "janina@rednote.net" <janina@rednote.net>, "jongund@uiuc.edu" <jongund@uiuc.edu>, "cooper@w3.org" <cooper@w3.org>, David Bolter <david.bolter@gmail.com>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Frank Olivier <franko@microsoft.com> wrote:
> The adom attribute doesn't indicate that the author did a *good* job of adding accessible content that will represent the information contained in the canvas - no technology or spec text can guarantee that.
>
> It merely indicates that the author believes that they have created some content that an AT should use.
>
> If we don't have the adom attribute:
>  - Accessibility checkers will not have the ability to programmatically scan for compliance.

How so? Wouldn't the content of the canvas be available to any
program, including a11y checkers?


>  - ATs will read content like 'please upgrade your browser' instead of useful text.

Where does that come from? Wouldn't they just see the canvas element
and try to do something useful with it?

Sorry for the dumb questions. Thanks for your help in making me understand.

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 04:47:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:02 GMT