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?


   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 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:25:09 UTC