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

Re: approches of canvas accessibility

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:33:41 -0700
Message-ID: <4E4B6ED5.20305@jumis.com>
To: public-canvas-api@w3.org
paniz,

This discussion happened quite some time ago,
and the result seems pretty well foretold in the discussion
about the adom CP:

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/22-html-a11y-minutes.html
found via: http://www.google.com/search?q=canvas+adom+attribute

"JC: I am saying that the value should always be true
... Why does the user care if it an exact replica or an alternative"

In this event, adom, it appears was proposed to toggle between
"fallback content" and "alternate content".

Through time, these converged as the "canvas subtree", as James Craig 
predicted,
as HTML5 defines keyboard accessibility (focus) on non-visible elements.

Those minutes pretty well cover the discussion.
Several people were requesting an "adom" attribute, to be used in automated
conformance checking, JC stated it was unnecessary, and possibly harmful.

I agree with his view.

Given the representation of vendors in those minutes, I'd like to hear
from both James Craig and David Bolter what obstacles have stood
in the way of implementing the canvas subtree, given that it is
already described/inherited through the HTML5 focus model.


-Charles




On 8/16/11 10:09 PM, paniz alipour wrote:
> Hello Benjamin ,
>
> you said :The proposal was rejected in favour of always using 
> including the
> content of the <canvas>  element in the _accessibility tree._
> _
> _
> but in the attachment it is some thing different?!
>
> what's your opinion?
>
> Thanks
>
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis 
> <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com <mailto:bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:34 AM, paniz alipour
>     <alipourpaniz@gmail.com <mailto:alipourpaniz@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > I want to know about adom
>     >
>     attribute:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2010JanMar/0185.html
>     > that you were researching about it ,finally what has happened to it?
>
>     The proposal was rejected in favour of always using including the
>     content of the <canvas>  element in the accessibility tree.
>
>     --
>     Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Paniz Alipour
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2011 07:34:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:10:32 UTC