- From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 18:10:36 -0500
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "HTMLWG WG" <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFAC127CB6.489BEC3C-ON86257609.007ED61D-86257609.007F5000@us.ibm.com>
Rich Schwerdtfeger Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist public-html-request@w3.org wrote on 08/05/2009 12:39:10 PM: > "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com> > Sent by: public-html-request@w3.org > > 08/05/2009 12:39 PM > > To > > "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS > > cc > > "HTMLWG WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org> > > Subject > > Re: Helping Canvas Tag Be Accessible > > On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:46:59 -0400, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: > > > On Jul 30, 2009, at 15:50, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: > ... > >> In order to make canvas accessible we will need: > >> • An object model to which authors can apply an accessibility API. > > > > This already exists on the spec level (well, maybe not so clearly for > > focus traversal) in the heavy-weight (object is a DOM node) form: > > Putting an ARIA-decorated DOM subtree inside <canvas>. > > > > I doubt the benefit of speccing another object model. A new object model > > could perform a bit better that a DOM subtree but any object model would > > still be an abstraction level mismatch with the Canvas 2D API. > > Agreed. > In thinking about serious canvas examples, can anyone provide some canvas examples that we can look at in addition to Bespin? > [..] > > * If the mapping from low-level platform APIs to a JS API is direct, > > malicious or incompetently written scripts can tell AT crazy things. Are > > ATs robust against apps telling them crazy things? Does the browser need > > to be able to sanitize the interaction instead of directly mapping the > > interfaces? > > This is a general problem. ATs and browsers have some rudimentary > protection against crazy information (e.g. for the summary attribute), but > there isn't a known general solution to this issue. I don't think that the > risk of lazy, incompetent or malicious coding in canvas is likely to be > far different from that in the rest of the web (i.e. I suspect it will > probably be something like an order or two of magnitude more common than > good practice). This is akin to "this doesn't open any *new* security > holes" - it is a long way from perfect, but at least it enables us to do > some useful things that we couldn't otherwise. In the absence of perfect, > I will take "better than what we have"... > I agree.> > cheers > > Chaals > > -- > Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group > je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk > http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com >
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 23:11:26 UTC