On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, David Singer wrote: > On Jan 12, 2010, at 14:52 , Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > I don't understand why we would want, or need, to make the accessible > > canvas DOM any different than the regular fallback DOM. > > I may be misunderstanding the question, and if so, I apologize. > > If I have some kind of scientific visualization with controls that I do > in canvas, and there really isn't a way to do that without canvas (i.e. > no real way to draw it), my fallback for browsers not capable of canvas > may be "we regret the loss of picture", whereas my shadow for the > accessible user using canvas may well be a set of controls -- > check-boxes ('Gravity morphing?') sliders ('Phi incursion angle!'), > buttons ('fire photon torpedo!') and so on. > > If I am right, I would tend to ask the opposite: how can we be sure that > the fallback for non-canvas-capable browsers will essentially always be > the same as the shadow for canvas-capable browsers needing accessible > access? In this scenario, how is the data made accessible to blind users? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 02:03:54 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:07 UTC