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

Re: "Where's the Beef?" department (was RE: Example canvas element use - accessibility concerns)

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:40:31 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f0902241640y274ef45ama80c31724565b909@mail.gmail.com>
To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
Cc: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:15 PM, John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca> wrote:
> 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.

Isn't the question at hand here: would saying MUST rather than SHOULD
result in more sites being accessible?

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 00:41:08 UTC

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