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

Re: unifying alternate content across embedded content element types

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:49:10 +0900
Message-Id: <04E66322-7EAE-4A16-B7A1-DCE0862FFD78@w3.org>
Cc: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>, public-html@w3.org
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>


Le 27 juil. 2007 à 12:47, Lachlan Hunt a écrit :
> http://apple.com/trailers/
>
> Those files are often well over 100MB, and even with my ADSL  
> connection, they won't stream.

The large version is usually around 30 Mo.
The very high def version is around 100 Mo.
The small version is around 5 Mo.

> There a whole range of other issues that could cause problems for  
> some people in the world, such as i18n.  A non-English speaker  
> wouldn't be able to understand a video that only provides English  
> dialogue and captions.

How is it different from someone in a French page giving a quote of  
an English book in English?

> This is why we should avoid conflating accessibility issues with  
> technological barriers, i18n issues, and whatever else.  There is  
> no one-size-fits-all solution, and it doesn't help to pretend that  
> one can be developed.

Not exactly. That doesn't demonstrate your point.
For example, Unicode offers a unique way of accessing many languages.  
It doesn't mean that there are all the necessary fonts on your  
computer to access the code, but at least there is a possibility with  
a unique system to access different scripting (more than having to  
jungle with iso-8859-1, iso-2002-jp, etc.)

> I didn't say providing multiple formats was an ideal solution, but  
> it does happen in reality.  For example, it's quite common to see  
> sites offering choices between Windows Media, QuickTime, and Real  
> player for a variety of bandwidths.

Only on some high commercial web sites who have the money and time to  
produce such versions.

> What evidence is there to show that such authors will provide  
> fallback mechanisms, like a textual alternative for video, in  
> HTML?  You have to look at the issues for all mechanisms.  Problems  
> with one solution doesn't automatically mean the alternative  
> solution is any better.

The fact that the technology is available but not used by many people  
doesn't mean it is useless. Some people might need it at a point.  
Take the example of a wheelchair lift in the stairs of a subway  
station. It is barely used, maybe 0.001% of the time, but when needed  
it is there.

I agree with you that if a better solution is provided, that would be  
cool. But we should not forget that people who are *already* using  
previous authoring practices for accessibility are used to some  
patterns.
If we want to understand what are the accessibility authoring  
practices, we have to look first in the community of people doing  
that already, and not looking at things done in the wild.

I would like to know more about people having to author accessible  
content in a heavy way.
What are the challenges, they encounter when they are authoring this  
content?
Are they satisfied with the tools? or are they specific things missing?


-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 06:49:38 GMT

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