- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:19:21 +0200
- To: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie
- Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Jul 10, 2009, at 09:14 , Joshue O Connor wrote:
> Yes, the WG could strongly advocate the use of <canvas> for nothing
> other than eye candy or pretty pictures. In fact the spec already
> pretty
> much states that it shouldn't be used when there is a better
> solution -
> not that many will listen as the genie is already out.
That's not a solution. People advocated for years that images
shouldn't be used for textual content and that changed exactly
nothing. The only thing that could make textual images go was always
going to be support for arbitrary fonts, because it then becomes
easier to do it and to maintain than if you have to pull up Photoshop.
This is the sort of area that I was thinking about exploring with my
Canvas SVG stuff[0]. I think that if you add built-in support for hit-
testing and focus to canvas you open the way to serendipitous
accessibility (which is what we want). The problem with that is that
it risks nullifying the initial advantage of canvas which is that it
is simple and low-cost — I'm unsure as to where the best trade-off lies.
[0] http://berjon.com/hacks/canvas-getsvg/
http://code.google.com/p/canvas-svg/
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Friday, 10 July 2009 09:33:58 UTC