Re: Please vote on the canvas accessibility proposal

hi Ian,

> This is the case regardless of whether an AT is involved or not.

what is the point you are trying to make here? I didn't make any claim to
the contrary.

>Pages that do this are non-conforming. Authors are required to provide
>accessible alternatives. If author are going to ignore the spec on this,
>why would they not equally ignore the spec for "adom" and include it when
>it is not appropriate, causing the same problem?

if authors ignore the spec it is most likely that any content in the canvas
will not be useful in the case where canvas is supported in the browser. So
the content should not be available in this case.

>Either authors are going to care about what the spec says, or they're not.

If authors conform to the spec and provide accessible content in the canvas
subtree, then it follows that they will set the adom attribute correctly,
other wise they would not be conforming.

regards
stevef


On 24 February 2010 02:17, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Steven Faulkner wrote:
> >
> > if the content of the canvas sub tree is exposed to AT and focusable
> > elements are included in the tab order, by default, then regardless of
> > what browser an AT user has they will get get this content. Regardless
> > of what relationship any interactive content has to the canvas content,
> > keyboard only users will be able to tab into and interact with focusable
> > elements.
> >
> > So for example if I am a keyboard only user and encounter a canvas
> > element that includes a link or 2 links or many that are not associated
> > with the displayed canvas, because they are "fallback" then focus will
> > be lost to the users, end result= confusion
>
> This is the case regardless of whether an AT is involved or not.
>
>
> > or I am an AT user accessing the page *using* Firefox, I encounter the
> > message "your browser does not support canvas get Firefox" end
> > result=confusion.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Pages that do this are non-conforming. Authors are required to provide
> accessible alternatives. If author are going to ignore the spec on this,
> why would they not equally ignore the spec for "adom" and include it when
> it is not appropriate, causing the same problem?
>
> I don't understand why you think it's possible for authors to follow the
> spec on the one hand, while using the fact that authors _can't_ follow the
> spec on the other as evidence that the feature is needed. Either authors
> are going to care about what the spec says, or they're not.
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html