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

Re: Acessibility of <audio> and <video>

From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:08:54 +0100
Message-ID: <48B31156.2010403@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
CC: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>, Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>

Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> Actually, I would correct Dave: While <video>/<audio> supports some kind 
> of fallback, the draft says that this isn't its purpose:
>     " 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. Note: In particular, this content is not fallback content 
> intended to address accessibility concerns." [1]

Yes, but the point I (and others) keep trying to make
is that this is what <stress>the editor's draft</>
says : it is up to this WG to discuss this, and then
to agree (by consensus) whether or not this is the best
use of fallback content.  If, every time someone
points out that some aspect of the current design is
unsatisfactory, the reaction is "but that's
what the draft says", then we may as well all shut
up and go home.  The whole point of this WG is
to /challenge/ the draft, whenever/wherever it
appears less than ideal : only by so doing will
we (a) remit our brief, as WG members, and (b) have
any hope that the final version of the specification
will will represent the best possible thinking at
this time.

Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 20:09:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:37 UTC