- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:08:13 -0400
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Léonie Watson <lwatson@nomensa.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, ""'xn--mlform-iua@målform.no'"" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, rubys@intertwingly.net, laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com, mjs@apple.com, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, public-html-a11y@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
Silvia Pfeiffer writes: > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 1:47 AM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote: > > ... It could be *any* image, displaying *any* visual > > design the art people choose. It could contain text never spoken or > > displayed in the movie, it could contain other content also never rendered > > in the film. We simply cannot say or know at this time how authors will use > > their ability to insert a placeholder image in the video bounding box, prior > > to the start of the video. We have given the authors that ability, at which > > point we have lost control over what will be chosen. > > http://www.collativelearning.com/PICS%20FOR%20WEBSITE/ACO%20expanded/posters > > /clockwork.jpg > > It frankly doesn't matter what picture the publisher chooses - it is a > place holder for the video with video controls on top of it and > therefore looks like a video and behaves like a video and provides > information about the video. If the publisher chooses a misleading > image, then the text would need to be misleading, too. It does not > change my argument. > It's not up to us to determine whether any particular content is appropriate--misleading, whatever. Our job is facilitating alternative access. > Have you heard of duck typing? It states that "When I see a bird that > walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call > that bird a duck." Similarly here, when I see an image with video > controls that behaves exactly like a video, it *is* a video for all > intents and purposes. > I now understand the intent among some here to incorporate even an extraneous image provided by the video element as "part of the video." Never mind the taxonomy, then. How, Silvia, are those of us who rely on alternative access to understand that that extraneous image, with its "misleading" content, is what it is. If you make it part of the video description, you entangle the video with its UI advertising. The sighted user will have no trouble distinguishing the two, but it seems alternative content users will have that trouble. That's not supposed to happen with alternative text presentation. We're to keep the semantics clear. Until the user chooses to "play" the video, it's just on screen advertising. The two should not be confounded, whatever you choose to call the componant parts. Janina -- Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net Chair, Open Accessibility janina@a11y.org Linux Foundation http://a11y.org Chair, Protocols & Formats Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/wai/pf World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 14:09:18 UTC