W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Acessibility of <audio> and <video>

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:40:55 +0200
Message-ID: <48B2E097.3080907@malform.no>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>, Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Anne van Kesteren 2008-08-25 17.34:

> 
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:19:43 +0200, Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> This is because, for legacy reasons, <img> is an empty element, and so
>> its text equivalent lives in an attribute, whereas <audio> and <video>
>> both support rich fallback via their content.
> 
> Actually, I think the idea is that the content stream itself is 
> accessible. The contents of the <audio> and <video> element are a) for 
> <source> elements and b) for user agents not supporting <audio> and 
> <video>.


You are right: Edward O'Connor is wrong. <video>/<audio> directly 
rule out (mis)using its fallback capabilities for fallback:

  " User agents should not show this content to the user; it is 
intended for older Web browsers which do not support video, so 
that legacy video plugins can be tried, or to show text to the 
users of these older browser informing them of how to access the 
video contents."

In effect, this is equalent of a @longdesc /link/. Because I it 
would be OK to provide a link to a transcript or similar.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 16:41:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:22 GMT