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

RE: Change Proposal for Issue 194

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 08:23:42 -0700
To: "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "'Silvia Pfeiffer'" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis'" <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <chaals@opera.com>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'Edward O'Connor'" <eoconnor@apple.com>, "'Geoff Freed'" <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, "'Laura Carlson'" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <016501cd39c1$3652cd80$a2f86880$@ca>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> >
> > Here is an example where there is no video element on the page:
> >
> > <a href="video.avi">Download the video</a>
> > <transcript src="transcript.html">This is a video
> transcript</transcript>
> >
> > A search engine can discover this as a video transcript even without
> a
> > video element present on the page.
> 
> Since the transcript is in no way associated with a specific video in
> this example, it's not clear why it is helpful to use a <transcript>
> element rather than an <a> element. It seems like the main effect is to
> prevent users from clicking on the transcript link. And since the
> transcript is not associated with the vide content, browsers have no
> way to offer a better UI. And the search engine has no way to know what
> video this transcript is a transcript for, so it's not clear how it
> benefits from knowing it is a transcript. Thus, I don't see how your
> example shows the benefits of a <transcript> element. Can you clarify
> please? What specifically would work better with this markup example
> than with <a>?
> 


Maciej

Is this comment as a Chair, or as an Apple representative?


In my response to Benjamin yesterday, I wrote:

So you are concerned with backward comparability? Would this calm your
concerns?

     <transcript src="whatever" id="tr1"><a
href="whatever">Transcript</a></transcript> 

...essentially a re-use of the <video> pattern: simple, obvious, easy to
both author and explain - the link is the fallback when <transcript> isn't
supported. The IDREF association still goes to the <transcript> container:
in supporting browsers it then would load the transcript inside the
container on the 'button' click. For non-supporting browsers, the
<transcript> element degrades to a non-semantic <div>, and/but the button
click moves focus to that 'div', and the next focus able item is the anchor
link.

The one thing I think that will gain little support is the one which
suggests that access to a transcript can ONLY be achieved by using <a
href="">transcript</a>: d links failed a decade ago, when design esthetics
still tolerated java applets and spinning mailboxes, and will surely meet
equal resistance today. (Arguments that this is what we are getting today
carry little water, as most videos DON'T have transcripts - perhaps because
linking them via text links is ugly...)

Does this address your concern as well?

JF
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 15:24:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 May 2012 15:24:47 GMT