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

RE: Acessibility of <audio> and <video>

From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:20:47 -0400
To: "'Edward O'Connor'" <hober0@gmail.com>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <093201c906f0$0f1ff4c0$2d5fde40$@com>

Sadly, that is not correct. From the current draft:

"Content may be provided inside the video element. 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 particular, this content is not fallback content intended to address accessibility concerns. To make video content accessible to the blind, deaf, and those with other physical or cognitive disabilities, authors are expected to provide alternative media streams and/or to embed accessibility aids (such as caption or subtitle tracks) into their media streams."

J.Ja

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward O'Connor [mailto:hober0@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 11:20 AM
> To: Justin James
> Cc: HTML WG
> Subject: Re: Acessibility of <audio> and <video>
> 
> > I find it a bit strange that
> > we are spending a huge amount of energy around the img/@alt issue,
> but no
> > one has brought up something like @alt for the audio and video tags.
> 
> 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.
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 20:21:37 UTC

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