- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:11:52 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-canvas-api@w3.org
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Steven Faulkner wrote: > > 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. I don't think there's any evidence of correlation between authors who care about conformance and authors who care about AT users. Do you have anything to back this up? > So the content should not be available in this case. The point is that if the author doesn't care about conformance, there's the possibility that the author will specify adom="" even if the content is inappropriate for ATs, and equally a possibility that the author will _not_ specify adom="" even if the content _is_ appropriate for ATs. > 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, otherwise they would not be conforming. If authors conform to the spec and provide accessible content in the canvas subtree, then it follows that the adom="" attribute is redundant, since the content will either be empty or useful for ATs. So adom="" is either redundant, or possibly inaccurate. What's the point? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 06:12:23 UTC