- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:33:25 +0000
- To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On 25 Feb 2009, at 00:40, Jonas Sicking wrote: > 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? Or is it: would saying MUST rather than SHOULD result in less sites being inaccessible? I bring up this nuance because MUST could result in sites having <canvas>pointless text to make this validate</canvas>.
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 21:34:13 UTC