- 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>
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. - m
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 22:01:31 UTC