- From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:53:09 -0800
- To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, David Bolter <david.bolter@gmail.com>, cooper@w3.org, janina@rednote.net, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, cyns@exchange.microsoft.com, Frank Olivier <franko@microsoft.com>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, surkov.alexander@gmail.com
On Feb 20, 2010, at 12:20 AM, Steven Faulkner wrote: > how is having this accessible to AT and keyboard only users better for them? > <canvas> > your browser does not support canvas get a better <a href="firefox.html">browser</a>. > </canvas> A spec will never stop authors from writing bad markup, but an author could just as likely include this: <canvas> <img src="graph.png" alt="Graph demonstrating increasing rainfall over the past five years."> </canvas> And forcing AT to look for an @adom flag would mean that this real alternative text would be rendered completely inaccessible. > What can be predicted (with some confidence I think) is that users will encounter this sort of subtree much more that they will encounter a subtree that is designed to take into account their needs. And so the proposal is to make all content (well-crafted or not) completely inaccessible by default, just in case it's not useful for the user? I don't follow that logic.
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 17:53:46 UTC