Re: Example canvas element use - accessibility concerns

On 2/24/09 12:17 AM, John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:
> Right, and I'm glad to see that the BeSpin developers were fully informed
> and aware, and "carefully weighed" the implications of the inaccessible
> application they were releasing on the world.  This is not a criticism of
> them per-se, but surely proof that the current should/recommendation is
> clearly not enough.

I don't think a labs project is proof of anything.

>> This is not different than Ian's approach. In his draft, @alt text can
>> be omitted if you have a valid reason.
>>      
>
> Rob, you know full well that this remains a contentious issue, and is in no
> way resolved.

It's contentious, but it looks resolved to me. I don't see a proposal to 
change the status quo.

> outcomes - not impossible, just increasingly difficult.  Sam Ruby last week
> suggested that keeping @alt mandatory was likely the best baby-step forward,
> no?
>    

Did he? Maybe I missed that.

>>
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Apr/0536.html>
>>      
>
> I would hardly call that a good exemplar, as it is but "130,000 pages from
> the list on dmoz.org" (out of how many millions on the web today?)
> Disappointing to be sure, but I think a survey of web pages less than 5
> years old, from multiple domains, would likely be a better representation.
>    

Maybe you should back up that assertion.

> However, I tire of this squabble - if you really believe that leaving things
> up to the good graces of "suggestion" will make a more accessible web, then
> you are entitled to your opinion.

I don't see a reason to believe spec language will matter. It looks like 
"accessibility theater"[1] to me.

- Rob

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 07:10:39 UTC