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

RE: Survey ready on Media Text Associations proposal

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:31:18 -0800 (PST)
To: "'Silvia Pfeiffer'" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "'Dick Bulterman'" <Dick.Bulterman@cwi.nl>
Cc: "'Eric Carlson'" <eric.carlson@apple.com>, "'Michael Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00bb01cabccc$b85ca4f0$2915eed0$@edu>
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> We had lengthy discussions about whether we should add an element that
> explicitly only links to external text streams or is able to also be
> applied to other types of content, such as external audio or video
> tracks. 

For example, a 'picture in picture' type of solution which supported Sign
Language (via human or perhaps avatar signing).

> In HTML5, a media element is not regarded as a composited resource.
> There is a main resource and it is the important bit - everything else
> is just additional information on top of that. Or speaking concretely
> in our example: the external tracks make no sense without the video
> element.

Hey Silvia, I would challenge that one a bit. External tracks do and can
make sense without the video - for example a deaf blind user has little
need for the actual "star player" but very much needs the "supporting
actor(s)" for comprehension.  As well, text tracks will factor
significantly (I believe) in search/indexing - while I applaud YouTube and
Google for their Press Announcement yesterday, it also occurs to me that
having those texts associated with the videos makes indexing and search
easier and more relevant/accurate for Google, who are, after all, in the
search business right?

Just jumping in... following everything else closely, but still thinking a

Received on Saturday, 6 March 2010 01:31:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:09 UTC