- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:05:46 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10642
Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |cam@mcc.id.au
--- Comment #77 from Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> 2010-11-15 08:05:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #76)
> I do not follow your argument for why they need to be separate. The purpose of
> the poster or displayed video frame is to express something that will make
> people want to watch the video. It is therefore not distinct, even it if
> contains content that is not in the video.
It is distinct, in that it is presented before the video itself would be
played. I can see a definite advantage to having the poster's alternate text
specified separately from the video content's: it allows the poster alternate
text to be queried separately. This would in fact bring the experience closer
to that of the sighted user, namely, that the poster can be presented
separately first, enticing the user to play the video.
Of course it may be that the first few sentences of the video content's
alternate text does this job. But it may not.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 15 November 2010 08:05:48 UTC