[html4all] Discussion: "Accept requirement for immediate mode graphics a la canvas element"

[Philip Taylor (Webmaster)]

Laura wrote :

> I'm trying to get my head around this issue:
> "Accept requirement for immediate mode graphics a la canvas element"
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/15
> 
> Thoughts on the accessibility implications?

<canvas>, like any fundamentally visual element,
necessarily excludes those who lack all or most
visual perception.  If <canvas>, or something
analogous (see my response) is to make it into
a future HTML spec., then it is essential that
it provide adequate fallback capability to allow
non-visual content to be substituted.  The latter
will, by necessity, almost certainly be a /poor/
substitute, but I think we would be beating our
heads against a 6' solid oak door if we were to
try to insist that all fallback content be a
perfect substitute for the inaccessible (visual)
content.

However, the real question is "Does <canvas> allow
for fallback content at all?", and the draft spec.
totally fails to clarify this.  The more frequently
I read the draft spec., the more convinced I become
that, in trying to be all things to all men, it
is fundamentally failing to communicate anything
useful at all.  It needs (IMHO) separating out into a
number of quite distinct documents, /one/ of which
would define the syntax of each proposed element in
a simple and straightforward way.

My 2 old zlotych-worth ...

** Phil.