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

"Where's the Beef?" department (was RE: Example canvas element use - accessibility concerns)

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:15:48 -0800
To: "'Rob Sayre'" <rsayre@mozilla.com>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <012a01c996de$35f87030$a1e95090$@ca>
Rob Sayre wrote:
> 
> I don't see a reason to believe spec language will matter. It looks
> like "accessibility theater"[1] to me.
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater


Call it what you wish, I call a spade a spade.  

<quote>
I point to all examples of <canvas> I've seen in the wild, and not one of
them is currently accessible to Adaptive Technology (and specifically screen
readers), so I know for sure that currently your method does not seem to be
working - "carefully weighed" considerations notwithstanding.
</quote>

I challenge you to show us *one* example of <canvas> in the wild that
attempts to even consider accessibility, never-mind actually achieve any
modicum of accommodation or equivalency.  In the grand tradition of WHAT WG
the burden of proof rests in your corner - show us that developers using
<canvas> today have taken the "suggestion" of ensuring that accessible
fallback is present - I mean, after all, it *is* in the spec.  

JF
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 00:16:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:32 GMT