W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Example canvas element use - accessibility concerns

From: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:10:30 -0500
Message-ID: <499F4676.7070409@mozilla.com>
To: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
CC: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>, 'Geoffrey Sneddon' <foolistbar@googlemail.com>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'W3C WAI-XTECH' <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On 2/20/09 6:30 PM, Karl Dubost wrote:
> Le 20 févr. 2009 à 18:09, Rob Sayre a écrit :
>> The text above demonstrates a belief that the spec can force people 
>> to do things. I don't think it can.
> The spec can't force people to do things. It encourage people to do 
> things. Often more likely, validators encourage people to do things. 
> They even develop more confidence into the validators than the spec. 
> :) [this from years of participating to W3C validators community]

I do agree that validators can encourage people to do things, or alert 
them to problems they weren't previously aware of. I'm curious how a 
validator would deal with the requirements in Ian's draft for the alt 
attribute. I also know of a very successful validator that manages to 
inform users of problems not quite covered by spec requirements. Here's 
an example:


So, while I agree that specs beget validators, I disagree that 
validators need RFC2119 imperatives to do their job in this case.

>> I want the spec to accurately reflect reality,
> "Not working well at this point in the message…" I think I understand 
> your goal, but "reality" and "real world" should be banned from all 
> discussions we have about technologies. These expressions are a smoke 
> screen to the actual issues

There are certainly W3C Working Groups that appear to have banned those 
terms. I don't think it is a good idea.


Is a good survey. Looks like there are a lot of alt attributes out 
there. I wonder how many are empty, and how many are valid according to 
the requirements in Hixie's draft (difficult to measure!)

- Rob
Received on Saturday, 21 February 2009 00:11:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:51:39 UTC