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:

<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/