W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: Thoughts towards an accessible <canvas>

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:50:30 +0000
Message-ID: <49C73F46.107@googlemail.com>
To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
CC: joshue.oconnor@ncbi.ie, mjs@apple.com, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, 'Charles McCathieNevile' <chaals@opera.com>, 'Wai-Ig' <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org, 'HTMLWG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'WebAIM Discussion List' <webaim-forum@list.webaim.org>, 'Gawds_Discuss' <gawds_discuss@yahoogroups.com>
On 23/3/09 06:15, John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:
> What is the price for non-conformance?

Well, in that particular case, the price would be similar to the costs 
of other instances of inaccessibility:

1. Loss of audience, with the attendant loss of funds or influence.

2. Denial of the audience's rights, with the attendant ethical, social, 
and legal risks.

I think the question of denying the entire audience content which is 
only accessible to part of the audience and the general question of how 
to promote web accessibility via a specification are large and 
interesting ones, but there is a serious risk of them sidetracking 
discussions of the technicalities of making content accessible in the 
first place. These questions are not "canvas" specific - the same 
discussion has been had around "alt". So I'd recommend separating the 
three issues:

1. How do you make content (e.g. "canvas") accessible to end-users?

2. How should HTML5 encourage use of its accessibility features?

3. How should HTML5 consumers handle partial content? (e.g. "img" with 
"alt" but no "src")

Without decisions about (1), questions (2) and (3) are pretty valueless.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 07:51:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:31 GMT