Re: Integration of HTM


I disagree with this. Most people do not understand accessibility. However,
the author has the option of providing alternative content when the canvas
cannot be made directly accessible. To quote Apple, where possible the
author needs to work side by side with the sited user to use the same
application component.


Rich Schwerdtfeger
Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist

             "Anne van                                                     
             <                                          To 
             >                         "Ian Hickson" <>,       
             02/04/2010 03:35          Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS      
             AM                                                         cc 
                                       "Jonas Sicking" <>, 
                                       Re: Integration of HTM              

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:49:56 +0100, 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:
> 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

Received on Thursday, 4 February 2010 16:39:25 UTC