That's fascinating information, thanks for taking the time to collect it. On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis < bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote: > > The "shadow DOM" proposal can be used to make some canvas applications > > accessible to blind people, but there you're really just creating > > alternative interfaces that bypass the canvas altogether. That can be > > done without specific canvas accessibility APIs and you haven't really > > made the canvas itself accessible, you've made the underlying > > application accessible. > > This doesn't make much sense to me. It seems similar to arguing that a > exposing a desktop application to an accessibility API doesn't make the > application accessible, because you've created an alternative interface > to it. > Hmm. What I really want to say is this: people are asking for "canvas accessibility", but they should really be asking for "application accessibility", and sometimes the right way to make a canvas-using application accessible to some users does not involve canvas (see your examples...). Therefore we should not add accessibility APIs to canvas for situations where a non-canvas alternative is preferred. It strikes me that based on your examples, what we really need to make many canvas applications accessible is not canvas APIs, but better audio APIs! Which we are working on, fortunately :-). Rob -- "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11]
Received on Sunday, 1 May 2011 09:25:30 UTC