- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 16:54:05 +0000
- To: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
- Cc: HTML WG LIST <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "jackalmage@gmail.com" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Hi Sean the fallback concept/terminology does not fit with how canvas is specced as the canvas sub dom is exposed to AT and is navigable using the keyboard even in browsers that support canvas (as implemented in IE9) have raised the issue previously but got a 'meh' response. Regards Stevef On 7 Mar 2011, at 16:35, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote: > Fallback content is used when the user agent is unable to present the content (because it doesn't implement the required feature), which for the <video> feature for example may mean a plugin using the same modality of presentation (moving image). > > Alternative content is linked to (in the case of <video> using the <track> element and not included within the <video> construct), it is used where the UA is perfectly capable of presenting the content (audio/video), but where that modality of presentation is not useful for the user. > > Not that I'm particularly pro or con the proposal, just pointing out that these are conceptually different things, and treating them as the same may lead to issues if both concepts are not dealt with adequately.
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 16:59:46 UTC