- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:43:27 -0700
- To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Steven Faulkner<faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > http://tools.mozilla.com/ > > non mouse users get a link to a html version > http://tools.mozilla.com/simple.html > > Reminds me of alternatives offered to flash content. > > We have the opportunity to work out how to allow developers to provide an > accessible canvas based UI controls, before users with disabilities are > ghettoised by the inherent inaccessibility of canvas as currently specced. As I suggested before, wouldn't it work to define that the semantics of a canvas element is described by its contents. This way the above page could create a table inside the canvas using the same script that is drawing things into the canvas. You could even use the exact script that exists on simple.html and let it set innerHTML of the canvas. However, an even better solution would be if the page used markup that was accessible with no extra effort on the side of the author. Since experience has shown that all too few people add "accessibility specific" features like the above. I think the problem is that people do what's easy, and in this case the author apparently felt that it was easier to use canvas than to use other, more accessible techniques. Adding accessibility specific features does not change this (in fact, just adds to the amount of work needed for the site to be accessible, making it even less likely that authors that simply do what's easy will produce accessible sites). A better alternative is IMHO to make it such that the easy thing is also accessible. For example if it was easier to create a table and then apply CSS than to write all the JS to create the same effect in canvas, then I think it's much more likely that the page would end up being accessible. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 20:44:28 UTC