- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:18:03 +0100
- To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Cc: Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, "Mike@w3.org" <Mike@w3.org>, "david.bolter@gmail.com" <david.bolter@gmail.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: > I've concerns about this approach. It would mean the sub-tree is no longer > separably viewable -- though not implemented at the moment, it is still an > option. I strongly agree that preventing the sub-tree being separably viewable is problematic, indeed to the point of it being a non-starter. The sub-tree was intended to act as an alternative for canvas like @alt is for "img". Making it nonsensical in complex cases would discourage UAs from making it viewable. This would prevent, for example, a user with at least some sight and images and canvas disabled from getting access to consistent text equivalents. This would break the specified use of "canvas" as a dynamic version of "img". > A clickable area is more like an SVG path, not a CSS box. Also true. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 06:18:42 UTC