- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:06:25 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: > > Without the adom approach we have no way of providing a directly accessible > solution for canvas that is testable for compliance. If you trust the author to use adom="" correctly, why don't you trust the author to write the accessible solution correctly? Or equivalently, why do you trust that if the use has specified adom="", the fallback is accessible? If you are saying that you don't assume this, but that the accessible content will always be further tested by inspection with an AT, then why can't you use that testing methodology regardless of the presence or absence of the adom="" attribute? You also seem to be assuming that the fallback content and the accessible content cannot ever be the same. My apologies if you are not assuming this. If you _are_ assuming this, then I must protest. I would posit that in many cases (a more-or-less static picture with no semantic interactivity), maybe the most common case, they will be the same. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 20:06:53 UTC