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: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 04:32:23 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTimNm8+tjHx-=pK-zMHsUzc_2NeAFOnG4gdPK+BR@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi David,

Thanks for the clarifications.

Best Regards,
Laura

On 1/5/11, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> Hi Laura, everyone,
>
> I'm sorry, I was stunningly unclear on both points!
>
> 1)  I meant to say, if you wish to have a page that shows an image that is
> semantically distinct from the video which eventually replaces it when some
> event happens, you have all the tools you need in HTML/CSS/script already,
> and if you use these tools, then that image can be fully associated with alt
> text etc. as it is a normal HTML image. So I was not talking of suppling alt
> text, but of a semantically distinct image.  If, on the other hand, the
> image is a transient place-holder that has the same semantics as the video,
> and is predominantly there to avoid having blank space on the page, then the
> existing state is fine (provided we have good accessibility provisions for
> the video itself, which I currently am unsure about).
>
> 2) It's a minor point about where text is.
>
> Contrast
> <image src="..." alt="this text is in the markup" />
> with
> <image src="...">
>   <alt lang="en-US">this text is body text</alt>
> </image>
>
> The first has user-presented text in markup;  the second has it (correctly,
> I feel) in the body text, where it's amenable to styling, language
> attribution (as in this example), and so on.
>
> I fully support the design principle of providing accessibility (I hope this
> doesn't need saying).
>
>
> On Jan 5, 2011, at 6:14 , Laura Carlson wrote:
>
>> Hi David and everyone,
>>
>> Janina wrote:
>>
>>>> May I amend my assertion to say that the need for alt text is not
>>>> controversial among the TF?
>>
>> David wrote:
>>
>>> If you *want* to show something that is semantically different, and needs
>>> its own labeling, then it is easy to do;  show a div
>>
>> Does this mean that you consider it more of a want than a need?  Do
>> you consider some sort of mechanism (other than a div) which supplies
>> a text alternative for a video key frame  is not a functional
>> requirement for HTML5?
>>
>>> I am also concerned that 'alt' breaks a very fundamental design
>>> principle.
>>
>> This is a core disagreement. "Access for people with disabilities is
>> essential. This does not mean that features should be omitted if not
>> all users can fully make use of them but rather that
>> alternative/equivalent mechanisms must be provided. Example: The image
>> in the img element is not perceivable by blind users. That is not a
>> reason to drop the element from the specification, but is a reason to
>> require mechanisms for adding text alternatives." [1]
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/AccessibilityDesignPrinciple
>>
>> Laura
>>
>> --
>> Laura L. Carlson
>
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 10:33:44 UTC

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