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: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:33:25 +0000
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-Id: <467E6676-BEF3-4E5E-B15E-84412578854E@googlemail.com>
To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>

On 25 Feb 2009, at 00:40, Jonas Sicking wrote:

> 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?

Or is it: would saying MUST rather than SHOULD result in less sites  
being inaccessible? I bring up this nuance because MUST could result  
in sites having <canvas>pointless text to make this validate</canvas>.
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 21:34:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:16:01 GMT