Re: Thoughts towards an accessible <canvas>

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:45:41 +0100, John Foliot <>  

> Richarduserite wrote:
>> However I am not so sure about your idea of not rendering non-
>> conforming content
>> "Finally, I propose that any instance of <canvas> that lacks at a
>> minimum
>> the 2 proposed mandatory values be non-conformant and not render on
>> screen."
>> Would you apply the same rules all non-text content such as images?
> Actually, yes, I have proposed this form of draconian response before
> (
> It's about consequences: until such time as there are real consequences
> for slack developers/tools that allows content to exist that is
> incomplete, then there will be content that is incomplete - it's a simple
> as that.  Why would <img src="path..." /> be any more complete than <img
> alt="Photo of a leprechaun" />?  I mean, clearly, anyone processing that
> info in their user-agent will 'get' the intent of the author, right?  Yet
> today, the first example will render in the browser, the second delivers  
> a 'fail'.  Ergo (to me) there is a problem of inequity here that must be
> addressed - if it fails for some, it should fail for all.

The problem is that the real consequences will be that any browser which  
does this will see its usage drop massively, to remain active only amongst  
a small group of hard-core techies.

Which means that the request is a non-starter. Asking for behaviour like  
JonG suggested is probably more realistic, since it isn't that hard to  
implement and doesn't actually break stuff for users.

It also happens that I have written this mail before a complete analysis  
of the technical solution, which suggests that the request leads to easy  
distraction of people from the main goal. I am sympathetic to what you are  
trying to achieve, and will look at the rest of it. But I wanted to  
seperate this bit out for now as "probably impractical - but don't forget  
it was said", and concentrate on the rest.

> I get that.  However, it does not change my thoughts, it only suggests
> that I will likely not get what I believe should be given.  But sometimes
> an extreme position must be articulated, if for no other reason than to
> set the outside bars far enough that the compromise (middle) position
> remains a win most of the time. Shooting for the stars will hopefully
> deliver the moon.

Yeah, but shooting for a point known to be beyond the moon but not really  
at the stars might just lead you to nowhere. Also known as "be careful  
what you ask for". (Accesskey is a great example. They asked for something  
that wasn't clearly thought through in all the implications, they got  
exactly what they asked for, and so for ten years a great feature was  
implemented so badly it was unusable for many people)...



Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk       Try Opera:

Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 15:35:37 UTC