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

Re: the market hasn't spoken - it hasn't bothered to listened

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:38:07 +1000
Message-ID: <4683493F.6030502@lachy.id.au>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Smylers wrote:
> Ben Boyle writes:
>> [Lachlan Hunt writes:]
>>> In regards to using longdesc for videos, that seems like it would
>>> encourage the use of "full multimedia text alternatives".  Several
>>> accessibility experts, including Joe Clark, don't approve of such
>>> things for videos.  Instead, they advocate that videos should be
>>> made accessibile through the use of things like captions and audio
>>> descriptions.
>> 
>> They absolutely should, but alternatives are still useful.
>> Particularly for people with limited bandwidth, which you know remains
>> an issue in Australia ;)
> 
> And also for people browsing with, say, Lynx.

They can launch the video in an external application.

> Or people who don't have an appropriate video-playing plug-in for 
> their browser (perhaps because  the video is in a proprietory format
> from a different platform).

You're confusing accessibility, which is about catering for people with 
disabilities, with interoperability, which is about making formats that 
work on different platforms, devices and/or software.  While the issues 
are sometimes related, arguing that something is inaccessible because 
some users don't posses the right equipment is wrong.  It'd be like 
arguing that DVDs are inaccessible because a few people still only have VHS.

BTW, DVDs don't get sold with books describing the entire film for those 
who can't watch it.  They do, however, get produced with captions, 
subtitles and sometimes audio descriptions.  Why should video on the web 
be any different?

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 05:38:24 UTC

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