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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:07 UTC