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

Re: <video> accessibility

From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:45:39 +1000
Message-ID: <5f37426b0709170345n243cec24p58d63c31eb5d95d4@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: "HTMLWG WG" <public-html@w3.org>

On 9/17/07, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
> Currently, the spec covers accessibility for the deaf (closed
> captioning). However, it doesn't cover descriptions for the blind.
>
> Closed audio descriptions for the blind could be handled using an
> additional sound track. ...

May I ask how this relates to HTML? I don't quite understand it
fully... I think I have a vague idea.

Closed captions and audio descriptions are great, really great. But
that's not HTML, is it? Unless we're thinking of something like this?
<video src="...">
  <closedCaptions src="..."/>
  <audioDescription src="..."/>
</video>

(Or would we be reinventing SMIL?)

Media formats that are inherently accessible are important. Promoting
such ideas is great. It will also be great if UA implementors can
agree on standards for how this is done. I don't know that this WG is
well placed to make decisions about such things (e.g. speex and
stuff). It doesn't hurt, but I worry there might be key stakeholders
unaware such discussions are happening here.

I'm more interested in reviewing and discussing the accessibility
features inherent in HTML itself. Flagging what accessibility features
are available in an external media resource is an interesting
prospect... are you thinking of capturing this in the HTML with
attributes or elements? I wonder if it could be abused a bit, but if
the information was reliable it would be very useful. (And reliability
is the responsibility of authors, after all).

cheers
Ben
Received on Monday, 17 September 2007 10:45:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:49 UTC