Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: > James Craig wrote: > >> 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. >> > > I think that is a gross assumption on your part. Assuming adom is set to > true fails for all cases you have today. > Furthermore, a test of this with an assistive technology would show that it > fails miserably. > > So, what you are saying is do nothing and hope for the best. No, we're talking about changing the focus model for all DOM descendant content of canvas. Your proposal only affects content where this attribute is supplied. > Right of the > bat your approach fails for ALL existing canvas > content today. For authors that wish to produce an accessible canvas we > have provide direction in the HTML 5 spec to do so (which your code snippet > would fail): This is why I put the wording in the proposal that I did: > > MUST synchronize the accessible sub-tree elements, semantics, and structure > with the canvas rendering. > MUST render and maintain visible focus of the canvas subtree element on the > rendered canvas > MUST render and maintain the keyboard caret insertion cursor of the canvas > subtree element on the rendered canvas > SHOULD ensure that the canvas rendering reflects the user settings for > font, color, and zoom I don't have a problem with adding author requirements to make an accessible DOM alternative to canvas. Our argument is against adding the extra attribute, because it's not necessary.
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 20:02:09 UTC