- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "'Jonas Sicking'" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, <public-html@w3.org>, <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote: > > Sorry for replying to an old email here, but this sat in my "drafts" > folder and I figured I might as well send it. Hi Jonas, I'm pretty much staying out of the larger discussion, but you raise some interesting points. > > For what it's worth, I don't think the disconnect is in if we should > start with use cases or not. I think the disconnect is between what > type of feature we're designing and thus the use cases are. I also think that part of the disconnect is in seeing accessibility capabilities as a "feature" rather than a foundational requirement. It seems that with <canvas> we unfortunately missed that need in the initial deployment phase, so now (it appears to me) we are left with trying to retro-fit a solution in place. I can appreciate the desire for elegant and easy solutions, however I don't think we will find one here: Retrofits are rarely easy, and often quite messy, which is also what I think is contributing to the discussion. > > Or, put another way, when working with accessibility for computers, we > don't try to attack the problem "how do we make computer displays > accessible", we attack the problem "how do we make microsoft word > accessible, how do we make the OSX file system browser accessible". Fair enough. How do we make *interactive features* that can be created using <canvas> accessible? Cheers! JF
Received on Friday, 8 July 2011 02:12:37 UTC