- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:35:30 +0100
- To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Richard Schwerdtfeger" <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:49:56 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: >> We are calling it the accessible DOM for canvas. It starts and ends with >> the <accessible></accessible> tags and it is not visually rendered. > > I really don't think this is a good idea, as explained in the following > e-mails: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0488.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/1151.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0931.html > > I do not think it is necessary to have multiple inline alternatives for > <canvas>, nor do I think it is necessary for widgets that represent the > graphically-rendered widgets on a <canvas> to be marked up separately > from an inline alternative representation. The existing features of HTML > already allow us to have multiple alternatives. Adding more features for > this is IMHO a mistake. I wholeheartedly agree. Making accessibility into something that only consultants can do correctly would be a huge step backwards. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2010 09:36:19 UTC