W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Example canvas element use - accessibility concerns

From: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:09:38 -0500
Message-ID: <499F3832.2070302@mozilla.com>
To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
CC: 'Geoffrey Sneddon' <foolistbar@googlemail.com>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'W3C WAI-XTECH' <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On 2/20/09 4:53 PM, John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:
> Meanwhile Rob Sayre wrote:
>    
>> These discussions work better if
>>      

That's my claim, and I'm sticking to it.

>    But *NEWSFLASH*, not all of this
> understanding can be expressed as binary bits of science.
>
>    

Not working well at this point in the message...

> You want the web to be more accessible, just so long
> as it doesn't make you have to do anything difficult or hard... it is way
> easier to suggest that you will leave the door open, but not actually force
> people to go through.

Still not working well at this point in the message, but I will answer this.

The text above demonstrates a belief that the spec can force people to 
do things. I don't think it can. I want the spec to accurately reflect 
reality, and that is a goal directly at odds with making rules that will 
be ignored. I hope you can at least understand my position, though you 
may violently disagree.

As for not doing things that are difficult or hard, I can't claim to be 
an expert in accessibility technologies, but I can point to a piece of 
code that I am responsible for

<http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/toolkit/components/feeds/src/FeedProcessor.js#1202>

I'm not aware of any other feed processor that makes an effort to track 
and preserve WAI QNames in XHTML. It's not a beautiful piece of profound 
computer science, but I tried to do my best.

> For real?  Hands up on this list - how many blind users really want that
> much data as part of their alt text?
>
> *Real*  user research suggests exactly the opposite:
>    

That's good, substantive feedback. If it's accurate, it looks like there 
are some spec bugs there. The discussion is working well here.

- Rob
Received on Friday, 20 February 2009 23:10:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:01 UTC