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

Re: Thoughts towards an accessible <canvas>

From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:35:58 +0000
Message-ID: <49C7822E.9060701@cfit.ie>
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>
John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:
> Joshue O Connor wrote:
>> Yes, all the more reason to ensure that the API is suitable /before/ it
>> leaves the stable so we are not facing a situation where we need to
>> retrofit the API for accessibility.
>>
>> Josh
>>
> 
> In light of the recent change from 'should' to 'must' (RFC 2119), if
> retrofitting the API is out of the question, then what exactly is the plan
> to ensure conformance?  The HTML5 WG and WHAT WG have gone to great pains to
> ensure that pages will conform, so please all, how or what is going to be
> done to address this issue?

I don't think not rendering the content in the browser is the solution.
I think this would be inappropriate. I don't know if I am /that/ worried
about breaking existing implementations (but Maciej and Chaals may have
something to say about that), primarily because <canvas> is new and we
are only starting to see some the more interesting uses for it, like
Bespin. If there are to be use cases where <canvas> will be used to
provide content that must be accessible to non-sighted users or people
with disabilities then of course there needs to be an accessibility API,
or indeed the suggestion of adding WAI-ARIA as a way of describing
content could provide the semantic hooks that are needed.

Josh
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 12:36:50 GMT

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