W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

RE: Example canvas element use - accessibility concerns

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:02:08 -0800
To: "'Rob Sayre'" <rsayre@mozilla.com>
Cc: "'Geoffrey Sneddon'" <foolistbar@googlemail.com>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <011a01c995e0$d82499a0$886dcce0$@ca>
Rob Sayre wrote:
> On 2/21/09 1:56 PM, John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:
> > So fix
> > it now, or deal with it later.
> Change 'should' to 'must'. Hmm. If we made that change, which of the
> following examples would conform?

If it is a serious question, then likely the following two, where 'fallback'
= something useful

> 4.) <canvas>fallback</canvas>
> 5.) <canvas><section hidden>fallback</section></canvas>

Of course, there *is* the educational piece, where we need to guide
developers to understand both the intent and also to help them determine
'useful'.  I look at the draft's existing work on explanations (i.e. @alt,
but with comments per other thread) as a good start. (I see other useful
resources such as Opera's curriculum as being a good place to instruct
emergent developers on the appropriate way to use <canvas>)

However, the very fact that something must exist will encourage developers
to investigate the needs requirement here, and thankfully some of the
accessibility message has already gotten through 'in-the-wild'.

The bottom line is that we cannot force anyone to be smart, but we can
construct systems that 'nudge' users in the right direction, and mandating
some fallback content within the spec does just that.


Received on Monday, 23 February 2009 18:02:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:42 UTC