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

Re: Acessibility of <audio> and <video>

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:46:42 +0200
Message-ID: <48BDDE72.7040107@malform.no>
To: public-html@w3.org

Smylers 2008-09-03 01.11:

> Leif Halvard Silli writes:


>> > If people start wanting to use videos 
>> 
>> There is difference beween using <video> and video.
> 
> Ah.  I'd presumed that <video> is intended to cope with all desires for
> embedding videos in webpages; are there some situations in which <video>
> is inappropriate and a different HTML 5 element should be used?


I just wanted to know what you talked about. ;-) It actually helps 
the discussion to be precise - it clears the mind.

 
>> > for logos, decoration, mere illustration, text replacement, as
>> > icons, or whatever then they would need <img> -like alt text -- and
>> > we'd have the same thing as with images, where a single image could
>> > serve different purposes (and as such require different alt text) on
>> > different pages.
>> > 
>> > But there doesn't seem to be a desire for such use of videos 
>> 
>> Take the flash example in LiveDom.validator.nu.
> 
> I couldn't trivially work out how to see it.  Any chance you could link
> to it directly or provide the HTML one needs to type in the box to make
> it display?  Thanks.

Just paste this code into the LiveDOM viewer [1]:

<!DOCTYPE html><embed src="flash">

>> > -- they all seem to be in the category of being 'important content'
>> > on the page --
>> 
>> Important content = 'critical content' = alt text unavailable?
> 
> Yes critical content, in the sense that it's critical to the purpose of
> the page -- and therefore particularly important (as with images) that a
> good alternative representation be available, though not necessarily as
> alt text.

OK.

>> > so, as Lachlan suggests, alternative representations could be
>> > embedded in the video and still be appropriate.
>> 
>> We know now, that alternative content can be added into graphica
>> formats, including videos. However, we need to be able to do it in
>> HTML as well.
> 
> Why?

E.g. because, like Philip (Ret'd) told Anne: we do not want to 
wait publishing it till we can make it accessible in every way.

[...]

>> if the poster frame was an <img> with a correctly used @alt, then
>> there would be no repetion for sighted users, while there would also
>> be a useful description of the poster for those with a browser which
>> do not display pictures.
> 
> Yes; that was my point (well, not specifically that <img alt="..."> is
> the best solution; there could be other mark-up that works as well).

As long as we speak mark-up, and not attributes to <video>, then I 
agree. :-) (Well, strictly speaking, even an @alt-for-poster on 
the <video> could work, but it is not the way I would prefer.)

>> Btw, we should not suggest using the @title as if was some kind of
>> @alt.
> 
> I don't think I was; I hadn't even considered a title attribute until
> your mail mentioned it.  (Note when I said the "video's title", I meant
> the real-world title of the video, what it's called; I wasn't referring
> to a <video title="..."> attribute.)

I interpreted Lachlan so that that he suggested @title as some 
kind of @alt for the <video>. Y.a. reason to say title="" or 
@title, so I don't misunderstand when you say title. :-!

>> > I'd've thought it better that there's some way in which non-image
>> > alternative to the poster frame could be made available for speaking
>> > browsers.
>> 
>> Absolutely. This is what I am arguing.
> 
> I know -- that's why I wrote the above in reply to somebody who
> disagreed with you!


I am smyling. :-)

[1] 
http://livedom.validator.nu/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%3Cembed%20src%3D%22flash%22%3E
--
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 00:47:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:58 UTC