RE: Thoughts towards an accessible <canvas>

Andi Sidwell wrote:

> Failing to write code to a syntax specification results in the code not 
> compiling, true, but you're conflating that with the functionality of 
> the software--code can be syntactically valid whilst still being a mess 
> of half-working, buggy, crash-prone ideas.

Fair enough.  Fallback content for <canvas> (especially today, as it remains
undefined by the spec) might be buggy, half-working and "a mess".  But we
are talking about a spec that is defining an API, and in that regard, if the
specification says "must", then we must else we are not in conformance - it
might not be great fallback (and I've tossed out ideas on how to improve
upon that), but if it does not exist, what then?

I've had a ton of people tell me I am crazy here, but I've not yet heard
*ONE* single alternative suggestion to address what to do when the <canvas>
element is non-conformant due to its lack of mandated fallback content.

So Andi, what is *your* suggestion?  This is a serious and legitimate
question.

You continue: 

>   - no concerts (or conversations!) without sign-language interpreters 
> present

This is silly and unproductive.  Most concert halls will allow, at no
additional charge, service providers for clients provided they contact the
concert hall in advance. More importantly, they cannot refuse that a
translator be present for any performance, and that is the law. What exactly
does this have to do with technology?

>  - no movies shown where someone hadn't written captions (this includes 
> watching just-recorded footage on the screens of video cameras)

FCC rules in the United States mandate that 99% of all commercial television
content be closed captioned, else the broadcasters license will not be
renewed (I believe there are also financial penalties involved)  What
exactly does this have to do with technology?

>  - no-one using stairs to a building unless there were also a ramp to 
> the same building

Most building codes in Western society today insist that public buildings
have a means other than *just* stairs to access anything above or below
ground level.  What exactly does this have to do with technology?

>  - no books or written texts without braille equivalents

The Kindle debate notwithstanding, blind users have a constitutional right
(again in most western countries) to have print books they own converted to
the Braille format without copyright contravention.  What exactly does this
have to do with technology?

>  - no smells (for there are people who cannot smell things and there is 
> no equivalent to that for other people)

I am not even going to comment on this statement.

JF

Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 06:55:50 UTC