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

Re: accessibility of video element

From: aurelien levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:33:38 +0200
Message-ID: <468BA1B2.1040803@free.fr>
To: public-html@w3.org

I don't say that this working group must support one format more than 
another. I just sat that open captionning is better for web 
accessibility (technically  easier to parse for AT than burned in 
captions even if actually there is any AT that can access to it, and 
easier for user to manipulate). I think that the more simple is the way 
to provide caption, the more content creator will add it.

SMIL is very good but it's a pain to use.
For example, to use it with a real media player in a web page i add to 
integrate it with an object element.
This object must have a .ram file src, this .ram file must containt a 
link to  the .smil and then the .smil must link to the .rt for the 
caption and the .rm for the video.

At least i think the video element must support adding of the current 
w3c timed text format DFXP :
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-ttaf1-dfxp-20061116/
(candidate recommandation)

This way i can do :
<video src="xxx.rm">
<caption src="thecaption.dfxp" />
</video>

or

<video src="xxx.rm">
<caption src="thecaption.rt" />
</video>
>> 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?
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 13:33:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:02 GMT