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

Re: Issue 142: Video Poster [Was: Reminder: January Change Proposal Deadlines]

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 15:45:11 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTinKF2Dh_iJ0-oa2=FMWUwpbUN2DLx-GLuh4XcNK@mail.gmail.com>
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Janina , John, and all,

> Janina Sajka wrote:
>> John Foliot wrote:

>> 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.

> I believe we all agree on this. If so, let's take this off the table.

>From reading the bug and the resolution, it seems that the editor does
not agree that it is an important use case. It is a fundamental
disagreement. I suspect other HTML Working group members will not
agree either. They won't comprehend why any type mechanism to supply a
text alternative for a video key frame is functionally required in

The Editor's Bug Comments

* Ian's Comment to Everett:

"I'm confused. Why would you (a blind user) want to know what the
poster frame is? How does it affect you?"

* Ian's Comment in his WONTFIX resolution:

"...why would a user with a visual impairment not want to know: well,
why would they? Heck, why would a user with 20/20 vision want to know
what the poster frame is? The poster frame's only job is to look
pretty and manipulate the user into starting the video, what it shows
is of minimal importance to the user. What matters is what the video
shows, not what the poster frame shows...
Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: The rationale provided is that text is needed to help users
of ATs determine the topic and mood of the video. However, that
information is not (necessarily) provided by the poster frame, and
thus cannot be considered an alternative to the poster frame. It is
also not an alternative to the video. It is the title or caption of
the video, for which we already have a multitude of mechanisms such as
title="", <figcaption>, <h1>, and aria-labelledby=""."

I suspect if the use case is not stated in no uncertain terms in the
change proposal for HTML-ISSUE-142, it will be decided against by the
HTML Chairs for the same reason longdesc was decided against. Longdesc
was decided against by the Chairs' because, "The strongest argument
against inclusion was the lack of use cases that clearly and directly
support this specific feature of the language."
That statement seems to be based on Lachan's argument in the poll. He
said, "I strongly object to this proposal on the grounds that no
compelling use cases - in fact, none at all - have ever been presented
by advocates for longdesc..."

John, please consider supplying use case(s) for ISSUE-142: poster-alt.
A use case describes who can do what. It states a scenario from a
user's perspective. No doubt it would be used to determine if any type
mechanism to supply a text alternative for a video key frame is
functionally required in HTML5.

Best Regards,

Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 4 January 2011 21:46:32 UTC

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