W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > February 2010

Re: [media] Moving forward with captions / subtitles

From: Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:01:19 -0800
Cc: 'David Singer' <singer@apple.com>, 'Silvia Pfeiffer' <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, philipj@opera.com, 'Geoff Freed' <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-id: <6D61D323-DE44-4150-89F1-04C4EA1E2355@apple.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
John -

On Feb 18, 2010, at 6:39 PM, John Foliot wrote:

> David Singer wrote:
>> 
>> On Feb 17, 2010, at 22:42 , Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:49 PM,  <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think Eric has already considered using this API for both, tracks
>>> embedded and external to the media resource. Also, in MPEG there is
>>> the construct of groups, too. So maybe we need to introduce that in
>>> the API somehow?
> 
> I am increasingly becoming worried about the reliance of client side
> scripting in these messages/suggestions/proposals (as I am reading things
> - correct me if I am wrong).  Regulatory compliance here is quite clear;
> today critical functionality must be maintained when client side scripting
> is not supported (WCAG1, Section 508). If the API enhances or improves the
> ability to do key functional things, or allows for alternate behaviors and
> 'style' considerations great, but anything beyond that is going to receive
> a fair bit of pushback from certain quarters.
> 
  As I tried to explain on the conference call the other night, the script interface *is not* required by the UA. There is *absolutely* no reliance on it what-so-ever.

  The only reason for the scripting interface is to allow content authors to have the same information and control that the UA has. For example, it can allow an author that doesn't want to use the UA's default interface  to create their own interface, eg. because it doesn't have the features their customers require, or they want to "brand" it, or whatever.


> 
>> 
>> 
>> It seems to be that if a trackgroup represents an optional feature (e.g.
>> "captions"), then
>> 
>> a) the expression that says whether the trackgroup as a whole is wanted
>> or not, should be, well, at the trackgroup level (a media query)
>> b) *which* of the trackgroup you want should be expressed by attributes
>> on the enclosed tracks.
> 
> Thumbs up on attributes, as they are processed not by script, but by the
> UA (no?)
> 
  They are *always* processed by the UA. They *can* be processed by script.

eric
Received on Friday, 19 February 2010 06:01:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:02 GMT