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: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:57:05 -0800
Message-ID: <19280.51345.60433.379822@retriever.mtv.corp.google.com>
To: singer@apple.com
Cc: ian@hixie.ch, schwer@us.ibm.com, public-canvas-api@w3.org, public-html@w3.org

You've understood things correctly, and the way you phrase it is
exactly the right way to think about fall-back content.

David Singer writes:
 > 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?  
 > David Singer
 > Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 19:57:45 UTC

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