- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:03:40 -0800
- To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-id: <518C9994-CF79-48AB-95F2-BCF38F4C323E@apple.com>
On Feb 4, 2010, at 8:50 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: > Anne, > > Seeing as you don't think people to need to hire consultants, I need you to make this directly accessible to a person with: > > - a cognitive impairment > - a person with dyslexia > - a user with RP > - a mobility impaired user > > http://www.nysubway.com/map/ > > Please enlighten us. > The map at that link does not use <canvas>. There are definitely challenges of making interactive map content accessible to a wide range of audiences. But this example shows that the mechanisms we invent for this should *not* be specific to <canvas>. They need to be approaches that work for all HTML. Regards, Maciej > > Rich > > > Rich Schwerdtfeger > Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist > > <graycol.gif>"Anne van Kesteren" ---02/04/2010 03:35:51 AM---On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:49:56 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> > 02/04/2010 03:35 AM > > <ecblank.gif> > To > <ecblank.gif> > "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS > <ecblank.gif> > cc > <ecblank.gif> > "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org> > <ecblank.gif> > Subject > <ecblank.gif> > Re: Integration of HTM > <ecblank.gif> <ecblank.gif> > > 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/ >
Attachments
- text/html attachment: stored
- image/gif attachment: pic13043.gif
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2010 17:04:18 UTC