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

RE: Example canvas element use - accessibility concerns

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:09:39 -0800
To: "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <06fe01c993d1$d5cf7280$816e5780$@ca>
David Singer wrote:
> 
> Simply putting
> mandates in the spec. is not enough if somewhere else down the chain
> doesn't follow through.

I could not agree more, however the solution is not to avoid putting in
links at the front of the chain - sure, it avoids failure down the line, but
it gets us nowhere.  If <canvas> is truly needed, then as part of the needs
design it must have a guarantee that it can be made accessible, or that the
specification insists on an appropriate fallback strategy.  And I mean
insist, not suggest, as that then becomes a flawed design.  I'm not saying
that it is easy, or fraught with potential failure points further down the
chain, but it cannot be simply ignored because of fear of failure later on -
that's a fool's solution, sorry.

The spec here is the starting point - all implementations trace back to it,
there is no "further up".  As Josh O'Connor pointed out, if the
accessibility piece is not foundational, it will always be an on-going
'bolt-on' patch that never quite succeeds.  This to me is simply
unacceptable.

> 
> It is a subtle balance, and best discussed calmly, I think.

...and I can be calm too.  But to say that the points I interject are of
non-consequence because they are founded on ideals beyond one and zero will
simply ratchet up the rhetoric on both sides, and I for one have no issue in
that arena either.

Peace!

JF
Received on Saturday, 21 February 2009 03:10:18 UTC

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