RE: Thoughts towards an accessible <canvas>

Richarduserite wrote:
> 
> However I am not so sure about your idea of not rendering non-
> conforming content
> 
> "Finally, I propose that any instance of <canvas> that lacks at a
> minimum
> the 2 proposed mandatory values be non-conformant and not render on
> screen."
> 
> Would you apply the same rules all non-text content such as images?

Actually, yes, I have proposed this form of draconian response before
(http://tinyurl.com/dgrd8b).

It's about consequences: until such time as there are real consequences
for slack developers/tools that allows content to exist that is
incomplete, then there will be content that is incomplete - it's a simple
as that.  Why would <img src="path..." /> be any more complete than <img
alt="Photo of a leprechaun" />?  I mean, clearly, anyone processing that
info in their user-agent will 'get' the intent of the author, right?  Yet
today, the first example will render in the browser, the second delivers a
'fail'.  Ergo (to me) there is a problem of inequity here that must be
addressed - if it fails for some, it should fail for all.

> 
> The crucial thing is that the users software (browser, screen reader,
> etc.)
> is able to render the appropriate alternative (if it exists). And for
> this
> to happen you are right that the software developers as well as web
> authors
> need to be given a definitive, unambigous, set of guidelines. But I
> don't
> think you can ask Microsoft etc to create browser that refuse to
> display any
> content that is not fully accessible.

I get that.  However, it does not change my thoughts, it only suggests
that I will likely not get what I believe should be given.  But sometimes
an extreme position must be articulated, if for no other reason than to
set the outside bars far enough that the compromise (middle) position
remains a win most of the time. Shooting for the stars will hopefully
deliver the moon.

JF

Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 16:46:29 UTC