- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 03:31:07 +0100
- To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, "david.bolter@gmail.com" <david.bolter@gmail.com>, "E.J. Zufelt" <everett@zufelt.ca>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, "Mike@w3.org" <Mike@w3.org>, Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote: > If we wanted to provide remote access to a system you would need to provide access to the same accessibility information on that system. So, in addition to drawing calls coming across you would need the additional accessibility semantics. Why? This isn't how accessible remote system access is handled today. In particular, as I've tried to explain before, providing access to the accessibility tree is insufficient on the dominant business platform, Windows. As you say, another beyond this would be a "very large project (fraught with a lot of gotchas)". I don't see any room for such a project. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2011 02:31:34 UTC