W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Please vote on the canvas accessibility proposal

From: Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:00:37 -0800
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7C47D219-F060-4970-BC7B-ECA671D3152D@adobe.com>
On Feb 24, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>>> # "When authors use the canvas element, they must also provide content
>>> # that, when presented to the user, conveys essentially the same 
>>> # function or purpose as the bitmap canvas."
>> That is not an RFC MUST.
> It is a normative conformance requirement with the full weight of RFC 2119 
> behind it, if that's what you mean.

If that's the case, then I have yet to see a single HTML5 document that includes a canvas element and conforms to the spec. And I've been looking for two years. I wish I were being hyperbolic here, but I literally haven't seen one.

>> It also does not mean it is accessible if you are saying the canvas can 
>> only act as a bitmap.
> I don't see how something that "conveys essentially the same function or 
> purpose", when presented to the user, can be anything _but_ accessible.

What you are describing is the same principle behind "text-only" websites, which has been discredited as a practice for a decade. This is not controversial. As an approach for a modern format, this is flatly unacceptable. Which is why we're going through this exercise.

Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 22:01:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:09 UTC