[Bug 13436] Editorial changes to The Video element (4 of 5)

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13436

--- Comment #14 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> 2011-08-13 13:32:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > > The spec doesn't mandate UI.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > This is not a UI requirement but rather a control requirement. You can make it
> > a button, a drop-down menu or any other UI widget you want it to look like, but
> > an accessible toggle mechanism is a MUST requirement whenever captions or other
> > accessibility support materials are present.
> 
> As always, by UI Tab does not mean *just* how the interface looks, or what
> widgets the interface uses, but also what the interface *is* - that is the
> specific functionality that user agents offer the users based on the semantics
> of the markup language and its APIs (their "feature sets", if you prefer). That
> would include "control requirements".
> 
> In general, the spec tries to specify what the language and its APIs mean, not
> what consuming software should do with that on the user's behalf. This frees
> user agents to act in the best interests of their user given their specific use
> case.
> 
> In this case, I don't see how your proposed text change would make any sense
> for user agents like wget that do not display content, or printers that do not
> allow interaction with content, or any user agent that does not have access to
> sound output and therefore cannot "display" audio description tracks.

But then, these user agents would not provide a control at all. Nor support the
multimedia API, or provide any other interactivity. 

This is entirely different from "what if the user doesn't want a control to
enable or disable captions? Should a user agent not be allowed to make the user
happy?"

Let's not play semantics, let's look at the real issue: if a means to control a
media file is present, then user agents must provide controls to enable or
disable the display of closed captions, audio description tracks, etc. 

How about a compromise?

In the section 4.8.10.13[1] on the media user interface, text can be added to
ensure that the controls to enable or disable the display of closed captions,
etc, are provided when circumstances warrant. 

If the user agent does provide playback control in the context menu, then it
_must_ also provide the means to enable or disable captions etc. If the user
agent does expose a user interface to control the media file, then it _must_
also provide the means to enable or disable captions etc. 

The user can ignore these options if they wish, and as stated in the bug, the
presence of these additional controls must not interfere with the page's normal
rendering, but they _must_ be provided in these circumstances.

Would something like this work instead?

[1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-iframe-element.html#user-interface

-- 
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 Saturday, 13 August 2011 13:32:37 UTC