Re: Thoughts towards an accessible <canvas>

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