- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 10:52:26 -0700
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > On May 24, 2012, at 12:54 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 23, 2012, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> wrote: >>> While allowing UAs to expose the accessibility tree of @hidden content >>> is great, I think we should make it a MUST level requirement. >> >> My understanding is that some AT implementors believe it would be >> difficult to comply with such a requirement. That said, I agree that we >> should encourage UAs to expose the tree to AT if they are able to. Would >> a SHOULD work for you? > > So far I haven't seen such feedback from any implementor. I've only seen me > and Maciej speak up on this and we've both said that implementation-wise > this is similar to exposing an accessibility tree for the contents of > <canvas> elements. Certainly not trivial, but doable and something that > needs to be solved in order to make canvas accessible (which I hope we agree > should be a MUST level requirement). > > However I could easily have missed other implementor feedback. If that's the > case a SHOULD level requirement might be ok. But I'd be curious to hear how > that implementor was planning on dealing with canvas. > > At the recent F2F, Microsoft representatives said that they believed > exposing full semantics for aria-describedby content would be very hard to > do in IE (in combination with the mainstream screen readers on Windows). Hard enough that they oppose a MUST requirement? Does this also mean that they oppose a MUST requirement for exposing a full accessibility tree for content inside of <canvas>? / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 17:53:33 UTC