- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:26:13 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: > > Simply because the subtree may not accessibly map to the canvas > rendering. It could in fact be an entirely different application and > rendering designed to do the same thing when <canvas> is not supported. > There would be no correlation to the <canvas> rendering. > > You would not want to tab through the subtree and have not display the > rendered focus in the canvas. You would also not want an accessibility > test tool analyze the subtree for canvas if the UI and the subtree are > not related accessibly. > > So, the simple answer is to just tell the user agent the intent of the > subtree either at run time or statically which ever works for the > author. So in the case where the author has failed to provide an accessible subtree, but _has_ provided an alternative mode for people without <canvas>, you're saying it's better for accessibility for AT users to get just the canvas with the AT not providing anything than for them to get the canvas on the screen and the AT reading the fallback? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 22:26:41 UTC