- From: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:15:48 -0800
- To: "'Rob Sayre'" <rsayre@mozilla.com>
- Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Rob Sayre wrote: > > I don't see a reason to believe spec language will matter. It looks > like "accessibility theater"[1] to me. > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater Call it what you wish, I call a spade a spade. <quote> I point to all examples of <canvas> I've seen in the wild, and not one of them is currently accessible to Adaptive Technology (and specifically screen readers), so I know for sure that currently your method does not seem to be working - "carefully weighed" considerations notwithstanding. </quote> I challenge you to show us *one* example of <canvas> in the wild that attempts to even consider accessibility, never-mind actually achieve any modicum of accommodation or equivalency. In the grand tradition of WHAT WG the burden of proof rests in your corner - show us that developers using <canvas> today have taken the "suggestion" of ensuring that accessible fallback is present - I mean, after all, it *is* in the spec. JF
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 00:16:29 UTC