On the topic of <canvas> accessibility, John Foliot writes:
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.
When pressed for an explanation, John continues:
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.
If it fails for some, it should fail for all.
John also believes that Flickr is (or at least should be) illegal because it allows people to publish inaccessible content. I’ll pause for a moment and let that sink in.
.
.
.
It’s important to understand just how extreme these views are, even within the accessibility community. I was a professional accessibility architect for several years; before that, I took an intense interest in web accessibility; long before that, I was a relay operator for AT&T. A few years ago, I had the pleasure of attending the annual CSUN accessibility conference, where I helped staff the Mozilla booth and talked about Firefox’s accessibility features to anyone who would listen. So I have had the opportunity to speak to a great many people who cared about accessibility, authored accessible content, wrote accessible software, designed accessible hardware, and provided accessibility services.
In all that time, in all those conversations, with all those people, I have never heard anyone say, “Seriously, you know what we should do to make the world more accessible? Fuck over all the sighted people.”
I know that most of the people who care about accessibility do not have the time or resources to follow the daily machinations of the HTML 5 working groups. That’s fine; standards take a long time and require a lot of attention, and most people have day jobs somewhere else. But I have observed a kind of “conventional wisdom” taking hold in this wider community — that the HTML working group doesn’t care about accessibility, that any and all proposals are rejected, that the views of “experts” are simply dismissed out of hand.
I think it would be wise for people who truly care about accessibility to take a closer look at the so-called “experts” who are participating on their behalf, and to understand exactly what these people are proposing. It’s true that some of their proposals have not been adopted, but it’s not because some cartoonishly monocled villain enjoys being mean to them. It’s because the proposals are insane.
§
I am no longer accepting public comments on this post, but you can use this form to contact me privately. (Your message will not be published.)
§
© 2001–9 Mark Pilgrim