W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2007

Re: accessibility of video element

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 14:44:46 +0200
To: "Dave Singer" <singer@apple.com>, aurélien levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.tuxxoweqwxe0ny@pc052.coreteam.oslo.opera.com>

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:52:00 +0200, Dave Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

> At 23:21  +0200 2/07/07, aurélien levy wrote:
>> Is anybody have ideas about this issue :
>>
>> - Actualy i see no way to have synchronized caption and  
>> audiodescription on video element (except from directly embed caption  
>> or audiodescription in the video itself) or is the media + source  
>> element here to achieve things like that ? why did not you take the  
>> SMIL audio and text element ?
>>
>> Aurélien
>
> The model is that the content itself either has some kind of  
> accessibility "burned in" (e.g. burned-in captions), or can adapt itself  
> to an accessibility need.  That's it.  I think it would be a mistake for  
> HTML to try to get into the realm of media layup languages, file  
> formats, synchronization requirements, and so on.  These are properly  
> the domain of SMIL and media systems.
>
> So yes, the media source is supposed to take care of this.  One could  
> reasonably embed a SMIL file as the target of a video element, for  
> example.
>
> Makes sense?

In a scenario where there is no known format in the first place, how does  
that impact the cost of making burned-in accessibility? Is it easy to  
transfer from format to format, as the video encoding is? If we don't  
mandate some format, then how many do we expect to have to provide?

cheers

-- 
   Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
chaals@opera.com    Catch up: Speed Dial   http://opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 12:45:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:46 UTC