- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:01:18 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>
On 9/27/2010 3:50 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: >> I am NOT in favor of directing developers to drop<canvas> to enforce >> accessibility in order to force them to do what may be the right thing. >> That makes accessibility very hard to drive forward when costs are >> unnecessarily raised. > Are you also in favour of providing APIs to make it possible to write > accessible text editors using nothing but radio buttons? Or do you think > that we should tell people that doing that is not the right way to do > things and that they should instead use the built-in text editing > features? Why is canvas different? I'm going to come out for this. A virtual keyboard is essentially a text editor using nothing but radio buttons. I've seen the same with online security entry pages. They generally use image maps. Radio buttons are accessed via tab+space (two buttons, with some directionality added), and by mouse events. I see this as a valid way to implement an eye tracking solution for a paralyzed computer user. How would you recommend such work be done? I'd prefer to code that IME in the browser than in a OS specific program. -Charles
Received on Monday, 4 October 2010 01:01:34 UTC