I think the question is.
Tab, do you want to work with us to address this gap in canvas
accessibility or are you going to push the SVG alternative? These
statements on WhatWG would indicate that you feel accessibility discussions
to be a nuisance:
TabAtkins:40% of the new email in my inbox from the last 10 minutes is
a11y.[8:08pm]
TabAtkins:Ah, to be fair, one of those was the public-a11y reminder that
I'm not registered and the list hates me.
Yet, I see that there was no discussion on the list to solve the problem we
are trying to address.
If you feel that we are wasting your time and that we should move on to SVG
leaving the accessibility hole in canvas then please let us know so that we
can develop a proposal without you. This way WhatWG does not have to read
our emails and we can solve this problem in the W3C. Frankly, I would
prefer your assistance on the canvas issue and the volume of email you are
seeing indicates that I am not alone.
It is clear that if someone develops a canvas application it will be
inaccessible on both desktop and mobile devices to screen readers and
screen magnifiers, without the notion of where the drawing objects are.
Canvas is a key feature of HTML 5. This is the HTML 5 list and not the SVG
list.
Rich
Rich Schwerdtfeger
CTO Accessibility Software Group
From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.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/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, 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>
Date: 07/06/2011 08:45 PM
Subject: Re: Accessibility, perfect or better Re: hit testing and
retained graphics
What do you mean by "run the web"?
My comment was a reflection on the abundance of canvas implementations and
how relative to SVG, canvas was quickly implemented. You asked me why I
thought it likely that vendors would pick up -one- additional method in the
specs. I answered; relative to more expensive standards such as SVG, which
have taken a lot more time to implement.
We are still discussing a simple and straightforward continuation of the
focus ring / shadow dom effort. The shadow Dom is already in the specs--
this is a minimal addition and neatly fits in with other semantics from the
Accessibility tree, the canvas subdom and DOM Core.
It seems the arguments against it have consistently been of the dismissive
variety.
I understand you're an idealist, but you're blocking the way forward.
On Jul 6, 2011, at 5:52 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Again, if a corporation is trying to implement a subset of the web
> platform that won't actually run the web, I'm completely uninterested
> in helping them do so (as, I suspect, is every other browser
> implementor on this list). We should not be encouraging this sort of
> behavior, and I won't waste my time on it. They can invent their own
> proprietary APIs, rather than burdening the entire web with things
> that can be solved better with other existing web technologies.
>
> If you meant something else by your comment, could you clarify?
>
> ~TJ
>
