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

Re: Acessibility of <audio> and <video>

From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:43:25 -0700
Message-Id: <p06240800c4d8bb9040e9@[17.202.35.52]>
To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Cc: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>

At 20:07  +0100 25/08/08, Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote:
>Dave Singer wrote:
>
>>Note that the current design does allow for fall-back content.
>
>Yes, but according to Anne v. K., that (in the
>current editor's draft of the specification),
>fallback can be reached only if the browser
>itself does not support <video> (or <audio>),
>rather than through a user preference that says
>"I am unable to benefit from rendered video;
>please offer me the fallback content whenever
>a <video> element is encountered" (this is an
>extrapolation from Anne's position, not his
>exact words of course).  This seems to me to
>force those who cannot see (or hear) to use
>what will almost certainly be an inferior browser
>(it seems safe to assume that most leading-edge
>browsers /will/ support <video> and <audio>,
>if ever HTML 5 becomes a reality), just in order
>to be able to gain access to the fallback content.
>

Yes, understood that that restriction currently exists.  We need to 
think hard about whether having the fallback content do double-duty 
is acceptable, about alt and longdesc and accessible content and all 
those things.  Particularly I want to make sure the structure of the 
framework is right, of course.
-- 
David Singer
Apple/QuickTime
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 19:44:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:57 UTC