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

Re: Change Proposal for Issue 194

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 06:54:41 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpvdSfS2P9PpFB-xteB94GDKcCO7+DaaZqDvfRh=_ae0mSQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Hi Silvia and all,

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Charles McCathieNevile
<chaals@opera.com> wrote:
> 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.

It also claims to be better than aria-describedAt too. Please remove
that bullet point, it isn't needed and may cause objections.

Best Regards,
Laura

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 11:55:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 11:55:44 GMT