- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:03:24 +0000 (UTC)
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, David Singer wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2010, at 14:52 , Ian Hickson wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand why we would want, or need, to make the accessible
> > canvas DOM any different than the regular fallback DOM.
>
> I may be misunderstanding the question, and if so, I apologize.
>
> If I have some kind of scientific visualization with controls that I do
> in canvas, and there really isn't a way to do that without canvas (i.e.
> no real way to draw it), my fallback for browsers not capable of canvas
> may be "we regret the loss of picture", whereas my shadow for the
> accessible user using canvas may well be a set of controls --
> check-boxes ('Gravity morphing?') sliders ('Phi incursion angle!'),
> buttons ('fire photon torpedo!') and so on.
>
> If I am right, I would tend to ask the opposite: how can we be sure that
> the fallback for non-canvas-capable browsers will essentially always be
> the same as the shadow for canvas-capable browsers needing accessible
> access?
In this scenario, how is the data made accessible to blind users?
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 02:03:54 UTC