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

Re: Integration of HTM

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:03:40 -0800
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <518C9994-CF79-48AB-95F2-BCF38F4C323E@apple.com>
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>

On Feb 4, 2010, at 8:50 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:

> Anne,
> 
> Seeing as you don't think people to need to hire consultants, I need you to make this directly accessible to a person with:
> 
> - a cognitive impairment
> - a person with dyslexia
> - a user with RP
> - a mobility impaired user
> 
> http://www.nysubway.com/map/
> 
> Please enlighten us. 
> 
The map at that link does not use <canvas>. There are definitely challenges of making interactive map content accessible to a wide range of audiences. But this example shows that the mechanisms we invent for this should *not* be specific to <canvas>. They need to be approaches that work for all HTML.

Regards,
Maciej

> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
> Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist
> 
> <graycol.gif>"Anne van Kesteren" ---02/04/2010 03:35:51 AM---On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:49:56 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> 
> "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
> 02/04/2010 03:35 AM
> 
> <ecblank.gif>
> To
> <ecblank.gif>
> "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
> <ecblank.gif>
> cc
> <ecblank.gif>
> "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
> <ecblank.gif>
> Subject
> <ecblank.gif>
> Re: Integration of HTM
> <ecblank.gif>	<ecblank.gif>
> 
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:49:56 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> >> We are calling it the accessible DOM for canvas. It starts and ends with
> >> the <accessible></accessible> tags and it is not visually rendered.
> >
> > I really don't think this is a good idea, as explained in the following
> > e-mails:
> >
> >    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0488.html
> >    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/1151.html
> >    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0931.html
> >
> > I do not think it is necessary to have multiple inline alternatives for
> > <canvas>, nor do I think it is necessary for widgets that represent the
> > graphically-rendered widgets on a <canvas> to be marked up separately  
> > from an inline alternative representation. The existing features of HTML
> > already allow us to have multiple alternatives. Adding more features for
> > this is IMHO a mistake.
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree. Making accessibility into something that only  
> consultants can do correctly would be a huge step backwards.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
> 
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2010 17:04:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:01 GMT