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

Re: Please vote on the canvas accessibility proposal

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:11:52 +0000 (UTC)
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-canvas-api@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1002240604300.1729@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Steven Faulkner wrote:
>
> if authors ignore the spec it is most likely that any content in the 
> canvas will not be useful in the case where canvas is supported in the 
> browser.

I don't think there's any evidence of correlation between authors who care 
about conformance and authors who care about AT users. Do you have 
anything to back this up?


> So the content should not be available in this case.

The point is that if the author doesn't care about conformance, there's 
the possibility that the author will specify adom="" even if the content 
is inappropriate for ATs, and equally a possibility that the author will 
_not_ specify adom="" even if the content _is_ appropriate for ATs.


> If authors conform to the spec and provide accessible content in the 
> canvas subtree, then it follows that they will set the adom attribute 
> correctly, otherwise they would not be conforming.

If authors conform to the spec and provide accessible content in the 
canvas subtree, then it follows that the adom="" attribute is redundant, 
since the content will either be empty or useful for ATs.

So adom="" is either redundant, or possibly inaccurate. What's the point?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 06:12:23 GMT

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