- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:40:31 -0800
- To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
- Cc: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:15 PM, John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca> wrote: > Rob Sayre wrote: >> >> I don't see a reason to believe spec language will matter. It looks >> like "accessibility theater"[1] to me. >> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater > > > Call it what you wish, I call a spade a spade. > > <quote> > I point to all examples of <canvas> I've seen in the wild, and not one of > them is currently accessible to Adaptive Technology (and specifically screen > readers), so I know for sure that currently your method does not seem to be > working - "carefully weighed" considerations notwithstanding. > </quote> > > I challenge you to show us *one* example of <canvas> in the wild that > attempts to even consider accessibility, never-mind actually achieve any > modicum of accommodation or equivalency. In the grand tradition of WHAT WG > the burden of proof rests in your corner - show us that developers using > <canvas> today have taken the "suggestion" of ensuring that accessible > fallback is present - I mean, after all, it *is* in the spec. Isn't the question at hand here: would saying MUST rather than SHOULD result in more sites being accessible? / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 00:41:10 UTC