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

[Bug 10642] No alternative text description for video key frame (poster)

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 00:00:44 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PHQ1U-0000gG-Nh@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10642

--- Comment #71 from Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> 2010-11-14 00:00:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #69)
> (In reply to comment #68)
> > (In reply to comment #66)
> > > Agree with David; IMO the poster is only an interstitial element at best.
> > > Accessibility for the video element is best done through subtitling, linked
> > > transcripts, etc.
> > 
> > Sorry Frank, but must disagree.
> > 
> > Given the fact that the author can specify *any* image as a poster frame image,
> > it becomes content in-and-of-itself: there is no mandate or technical means to
> > ensure that the image used is a frame from the video, or that it even directly
> > relates to the video. 
> > 
> > It may be *presumed* that this would be the normal way that authors would use a
> > poster frame image (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10642#c22),
> > but there is no practical or programmatic means of ensuring this: consider a
> > Film Festival site, where each film's "poster" would be a branding exercise for
> > the Festival and have nothing to do with the film itself - the image might even
> > include (yech) text... the point is, we have no idea *what* kind of image will
> > be used here, and further have no way of 'policing' how a poster image will be
> > used.
> > 
> > As such, the image used as the poster frame requires a means of directly
> > linking the 'alternative text' for that image to the image.
> > 
> > Silvia Pfeiffer suggested:
> > > All that would be required is an extra sentence to encourage users to
> > > explain the poster content as part of the alternative text of the video
> > > element. (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10642#c62)
> > 
> > Once again, this presumes that the image is directly related to the video, a
> > presumption we should not be making.
> 
> 
> It is specified through a @src attribute on a <video> element and shown as a
> replacement for the video before the video starts playing back. I think your
> assumption that it may have nothing to do with the video only holds true when
> that image is not used in the @src attribute, but otherwise it has a very
> strong link to it. 


I meant of course: @poster attribute on the <video> element, sorry for the
confusion.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 14 November 2010 00:00:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:24 GMT