W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Proposal: Canvas accessibility and a media querries approach for alternative content (Action Item 6 in the HTML Accessibility Task Force)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:03:24 +0000 (UTC)
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.1001140203030.26049@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
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