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

Re: Change Proposal for Issue 194

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:58:39 +0200
To: "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <op.wepfb1dcwxe0ny@widsith-3.local>
On Tue, 22 May 2012 09:16:50 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer  
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> In an effort to work towards a consensus Change Proposal on Issue 194,
> we've had several media subgroup meetings, the result of which is the
> following Change Proposal:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ISSUE-194/TranscriptElement

First up: This meets the "I can live with it" test for me.

But... a couple of comments:

In positive effects it claims to be better than longdesc - apparently  
because it can point to something in the page. Since longdesc can do that  
too, I don't see how that claim is justifiable - and anyway I don't think  
it is important to this case. It should simply be removed.

In talking to TV content producers who currently ship massive amounts of  
captioned content, they pretty clearly wanted the transcript to be inside  
the video element by default. What happens if the transcript element is  
placed inside the video element? Does it still need the transcript  
attribute? Or does it *have* to be placed outside the element?

IMHO (informed by people who would have to do this a lot) separating the  
two pieces and then having to put them together is something of an  
anti-pattern for authoring and maintenance, although for the sake of  
handling links to transcripts without duplication I think it is an  
acceptable compromise in this situation.

In the guidance about using the element to wrap links, it needs to be  
clear what happens if these are added for backwards compatibility and then  
hidden for design aesthetics. Experience suggests that people do that with  
anything they *think* is just for accessibility, and that they do it in  
ways that range from not very good to completely broken.

There is a URL API being developed in the Web Apps group - messy editor's  
draft at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/url/raw-file/tip/Overview.html but given  
this is relatively simple it should be finished before HTML 5. That might  
be better than rolling your own.

Thanks for doing the work on pulling together, and thanks to everyone who  
worked to get a reasonable agreement.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 09:59:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 09:59:44 GMT