W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > November 2010

[Bug 10642] No alternative text description for video key frame (poster)

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:27:41 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PI6aT-0007fP-5D@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10642

--- Comment #85 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 2010-11-15 21:27:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #84)
> (In reply to comment #83)
> > (In reply to comment #81)
> > > one of the ideas I have discussed with some people is having the poster
> > > attribute accept an ID  which can be the ID of an <img> element anywhere on the
> > > page. In this way a new element/attribute is not required as the alt of the
> > > <img> will be the alt for the poster.
> > 
> > It seems unlikely that the poster frame would be displayed as an image in a
> > separate place on the page. The whole point of the poster frame is that it is a
> > temporary placeholder for the video, and it goes away as soon as the video
> > starts playing.
> 
> i guess my thinking was more that it would be in the video element, so could
> also serve as fallback if video was not supported.

It's unlikely that the poster frame would make good fallback for the
video-no-supported case. It's supposed to be an affordance for starting the
video. If the user's browser doesn't support HTML5 video, then instead of
something to represent the not-yet-playing video, it would be more appropriate
to show a message that video is not supported, or an alternate playback
mechanism, such as a plugin-based video player. It's not really very likely
that a visible version of the poster frame would be in the fallback.

-- 
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 21:27:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 15 November 2010 21:27:43 GMT