- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:58:39 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-canvas-api@w3.org, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > > So, are we also saying that fallback inside the <canvas> should always > function as accessibility markup? If that is the case, then it means > that as soon as there is markup inside the <canvas>, we have support for > accessibility. End of story. don't read any further. :-) That's more or less what I'm saying, yes, though more specifically, when there is content in the DOM inside <canvas>, rather than markup on the wire. What's important for ATs is what the DOM contains, and that can be different from what's on the wire -- a hopefully common case in the future will be for the page to have markup with legacy fallback, then the script detects <canvas> support and replaces it with focusable/accessible content. (This isn't done today since no browser actually supports this.) Hence why adom="" is redundant -- the element's contents always fall into one of these buckets, all of which should be read to the user by ATs: - content is empty (reading has no effect) - content is accessible augmentation of <canvas> - content is the only accessible alternative to the <canvas> - there is no accessible alternative and the content says so -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 09:59:12 UTC