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

Re: Example canvas element use - accessibility concerns

From: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:08:58 -0500
Message-ID: <49A2E63A.1050507@mozilla.com>
To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
CC: 'Geoffrey Sneddon' <foolistbar@googlemail.com>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'W3C WAI-XTECH' <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On 2/23/09 1:02 PM, John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:
> However, the very fact that something must exist will encourage developers

#2 and #3 have 'something' as fallback content. I'm also not sure why #5 
is better than #2 or #3. Text that describes the difference might be an 
interesting read.

> The bottom line is that we cannot force anyone to be smart, but we can
> construct systems that 'nudge' users in the right direction,

Agree. I'll take this to heart in documents I'm working on.

>   and mandating
> some fallback content within the spec does just that.

Mandating is not nudging. Recommending fallback content is a 'nudge'.

- Rob
Received on Monday, 23 February 2009 18:09:43 UTC

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