- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:35:58 +0000
- To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
- Cc: joshue.oconnor@ncbi.ie, mjs@apple.com, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, 'Charles McCathieNevile' <chaals@opera.com>, 'Wai-Ig' <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org, 'HTMLWG' <public-html@w3.org>
John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote: > Joshue O Connor wrote: >> Yes, all the more reason to ensure that the API is suitable /before/ it >> leaves the stable so we are not facing a situation where we need to >> retrofit the API for accessibility. >> >> Josh >> > > In light of the recent change from 'should' to 'must' (RFC 2119), if > retrofitting the API is out of the question, then what exactly is the plan > to ensure conformance? The HTML5 WG and WHAT WG have gone to great pains to > ensure that pages will conform, so please all, how or what is going to be > done to address this issue? I don't think not rendering the content in the browser is the solution. I think this would be inappropriate. I don't know if I am /that/ worried about breaking existing implementations (but Maciej and Chaals may have something to say about that), primarily because <canvas> is new and we are only starting to see some the more interesting uses for it, like Bespin. If there are to be use cases where <canvas> will be used to provide content that must be accessible to non-sighted users or people with disabilities then of course there needs to be an accessibility API, or indeed the suggestion of adding WAI-ARIA as a way of describing content could provide the semantic hooks that are needed. Josh
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 12:36:50 UTC