- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:09:42 -0800
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
On Jan 13, 2010, at 18:03 , Ian Hickson wrote:
> 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?
Why is the accessibility need assumed to be visual? We have motor-impaired people who cannot operate a mouse, but who can interact with buttons/sliders etc. using, for example, voice controls.
David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 02:10:16 UTC