W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-canvas-api@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Accessibility, perfect or better Re: hit testing and retained graphics

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:46:00 -0700
Message-Id: <D5B32982-D257-4E94-9707-B23CBF09759B@jumis.com>
Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "E.J. Zufelt" <everett@zufelt.ca>, Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, "david.bolter@gmail.com" <david.bolter@gmail.com>, Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, "Mike@w3.org" <Mike@w3.org>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
I think your reply lacks substance.

Corporations are -have already- more likely to support the canvas spec because it is small, maps well to their 2d apis and is supported well by other vendors, it is in demand. It costs relatively little to support canvas. Approx $15k per implementation.

Your other statements are rebuttals without citation/arguable points.


On Jul 6, 2011, at 5:30 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
>> On 7/1/2011 11:24 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>>>>  Canvas semantics with CSS attributes provide for equivalency
>>>>>  with the UA-level elements in the render tree.
>>>>>  You're not "doing it wrong", when you are using the
>>>>>  very technology that the browser runs on, and using the
>>>>>  DOM/HTML semantics that the web users.
>>>>>  When you're following the standards, using standard
>>>>>  APIs, you're doing application development "right".
>>> There are a small number of browsers, written by large teams of
>>> incredibly smart and talented people, who have incentives to do a11y
>>> well.
>>> There are an incredible number of webapps, written mostly by single
>>> hackers or small teams of varying skill levels and education, most of
>>> whom don't have any real reason to do a11y well since making the app
>>> work for 80% of people is good enough.
>>> The former group only has to get a11y right a few times, and they can
>>> do this because they're very smart.  The latter group is just as smart
>>> (or smarter) collectively, but they have to get it right millions of
>>> times, mostly independently.
>>> This is not a false dichotomy.
>> SVG accessibility and implementations prove that the limited number of
>> corporations
>> with their hat in the ring are not sufficiently serving the audience that I
>> am targeting.
> Why do you think they're more likely to serve your audience with <canvas>?
> (It's generally a bad strategy to try to hack around bugs or holes in
> the platform by proposing new functionality - new functionality
> generally takes longer than bugfixing, and the new tech may have the
> same bugs or holes (or even more likely, exciting new ones!).)
>> Economic theories, whether Hayek, Kaynes or otherwise, have the same
>> solution for
>> the situation: competition.
>> Enabling a million developers to experiment with communication is a better
>> situation
>> than restricting the experiment to a few dozen developers.
> Incorrect.  A million developers doing a million different things will
> mostly do things wrong when the correct solution requires extra effort
> and doesn't have immediate visual or functional feedback telling you
> if it's working or broken.
> ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 00:46:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:10:31 UTC