- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:16:11 -0800
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Feb 3, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Ian Hickson 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 agree. I don't think the <accessible> tag is an improvement. In the common case, the same content can work as an accessible DOM and as fallback content. And that's also the model for other elements that use fallback content partly for accessibility purposes (e.g. <object>). I don't see the case for making canvas accessibility intrinsically more complicated. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2010 16:16:48 UTC