W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > January 2011

RE: Reminder: January Change Proposal Deadlines

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:29:59 -0800 (PST)
To: "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>, "'Laura Carlson'" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Cc: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'Janina Sajka'" <janina@rednote.net>, "'Martin Kliehm'" <martin.kliehm@namics.com>, "'E.J. Zufelt'" <everett@zufelt.ca>, "'Steve Faulkner'" <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>, "'Matt May'" <mattmay@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <0a0b01cbab7c$9c1000e0$d43002a0$@edu>
David Singer wrote:
> >
> > * January 26: HTML-ISSUE-142 "No alternative text description for
> > video key frame (poster)" [10] [11]. The bug for Issue 142 [12] is
> > marked with the "a11ytf" keyword. I think John is working on this
> one.
> >
> I think this is an individual submission, not a task force item, as a
> number of us feel that this is not the right thing to do, and in fact
> has a good chance to make accessibility worse, not better.


Can you elaborate please? How do you feel that this will "make
accessibility worse" specifically? 

I have asked numerous non-sighted users and other accessibility
specialists for their feedback on this issue, and almost without pause
they all agree that knowing the text alternative for a placeholder image
that *stands in* for a video is an important piece of data they wish to
know/understand. A deliberately chosen image by the page author to occupy
the region which will subsequently be the video *is not* the same as the
video, as Everett (who originally filed the bug), Artur Ortega (Yahoo!),
Gregory Rosmaita and Matt May (Adobe) have all confirmed/explained on this
list. While we may not have unanimity on this topic within the Task Force,
I think that it is more than just an "individual submission".


Housekeeping: The "a11ytf" keyword was added to bug 10642 by Martin Kliehm
on Nov. 30th as part of the Bug Triage team's work. 

Martin also noted on December 2nd that this bug is now escalated to an

Received on Monday, 3 January 2011 19:30:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:17 UTC