W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > May 2012

Re: discussion of video transcript - issue 194

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 22:53:19 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2m=+Y9f0E_DJaJLTPikH=pVHGnQLrTMzNEVaq4uARLbgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
I only just got around to reading Benjamin's reply, but I don't think
I have anything to add - he's covered it all.

BTW: I've update my proposal with some more details. Still need to
work out some others.


On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
<bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:23 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
>> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
>>> <transcript>
>>> <video id=v1 src=video.mp4></video>
>>> <p>This is a on-page transcript.</p>
>>> </transcript>
>> Yech. From an authoring perspective, that is a very ugly and confusing pattern to propose, even if it would technically be viable. It seems to suggest that the video is a child of the Transcript, which is both false and *really* confusing.
> Is it really more weird to make a <video> element descend from a
> <transcript> element than to make a form field element descend from a
> <label> element? I doubt it.
> At any rate, I think it's less confusing to authors to adopt the
> <label> association model wholesale, than to adopt it partially, even
> if it leads to weirdness.
> In practice, I expect a user agent algorithm that only looked for the
> nearest <video> element or form field to find a <transcript> or
> <label> would work better than an algorithm that only looked for a
> @for/@id pairing.
>> most transcripts will not be "on-page" due to their size and volume of content.
> Why should we believe this?
> On-page transcripts are not uncommon, bandwidth is getting cheaper,
> transcripts tend to be concise, and text compresses well.
> Even a movie length transcript will gzip down to 200K or less (for
> example the script for Star Wars: A New Hope is about 75K). By
> comparison, the initial load of a YouTube page and its resources
> consumes about 10MB.
> We don't really need to reach consensus about what the majority case
> will be; I think it's fair to say at least some publishers would
> prefer to link to transcripts, and at least some publishers would
> prefer to inline transcripts.
> However, the proposal already supports providing a link via the
> <transcript> element.
>> They will most likely be external documents in (hopefully) HTML, but also quite possibly PDF, Doc/Open Office, perhaps even Daisy - all viable and possible options today.
> I don't think we need to support non-HTML transcripts, but the
> proposal already supports linking them via <a> or transcluding them
> with <iframe>.
>> This seems to insist that the link to the transcript be an on-screen text link, which many of us feel is too simplistic a response.
> I don't understand how this was a response to what I was saying. I'm
> talking about improving the algorithm for associating <label> (and a
> <transcript> element designed along the same model) to make authoring
> easier and (hopefully) to handle the corpus better.
>> If you want to take your analogy of <label> further, I ask you - how often do we currently see
>> <label class="CSS_off_screen_because_onscreen_is_ugly">?
>> (I will suggest the answer is Very Often)
> It would be easy to use <transcript> as proposed, but have the
> transcript hidden in a <details> element until revealed by pressing a
> transcript button in the publisher provided controls.
>> My concern is that using such a blunt work-around is hardly elegant
> In what sense is the proposal a "work-around"?
>> , and once again might suffer from the orphaned link-to-transcript problem when authors cut and paste a <video> all the stuff </video> block - remembering that what *they* want is the video first.
> Ordinary users tend to include video in their web content today by
> copying and pasting a provided widget from a video sharing site. It's
> really easy for video site publishers to provide video widgets that
> preserve transcripts by just providing an iframe to a page that
> inlines, transcludes, or links to the transcript.
>> My preference then would be that any solution discussed sees the vehicle for including the transcript be included inside the opening and closing <video> 'tags' (which @transcript, <track>, and apparently <transcript> would provide).
> That would not pave the cowpath of including either a visible
> transcript or a visible control to open the transcript.
> It would also have a poorer backwards compatibility story, since
> currently browsers hide the content inside <video>.
>> From the 'elegance' perspective, my preference would also be for something that could easily be incorporated into both the native as well as author-scripted controls that HTML5 offers. This would consistently follow a precedent already established by media players today, that expose a "CC" button inside of the controls bar whenever Closed Captions are available. While this would by no means restrict other presentation/delivery patterns, I would go so far as to suggest it might be recommended as the default way of doing so.
> I have no problem with allowing UAs to expose a "View Transcript"
> command on top of the semantics in the proposal. This command could be
> exposed as a button and/or a context menu item. We could suggest that
> UAs that do implement UI could open <details> or <dialog> elements,
> and follow hyperlinks, as appropriate. It would certainly make sense
> to expose it as an accessible action in the accessibility API mapping.
> I don't quite share the Proposal's scepticism about providing native
> visual UI here (for example, I can imagine a UI pulling the transcript
> into a full screen view) but I like the fact that the Proposal does
> not depend on such UI.
> Probably any proposal, like this one, that provides an unambiguous
> association between a transcript and its video would be possible to
> work into both native and scripted controls.
> --
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Friday, 11 May 2012 12:54:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:28 UTC