Re: Change Proposal for Issue 194

On Feb 15, 2012, at 11:57 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Perhaps a nit... but WCAG does not require transcripts on images. They are for time based media.


And we do already have a lot of semantics for image. If it's an issue, I don't need @transcription on image. But, I could see it being used.

I don't know that animated images are desirable... Animated gifs are fairly silly. I wouldn't consider them as a use case.





> 
> Cheers
> David MacDonald
> 
> ... access empowers ...
>                 ... barriers disable ...
> www.eramp.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Pritchard [mailto:chuck@jumis.com] 
> Sent: February-14-12 9:15 PM
> To: Silvia Pfeiffer
> Cc: David Singer; Janina Sajka; Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis; John Foliot; public-html@w3.org; public-html-a11y@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Change Proposal for Issue 194
> 
> Seconded.
> 
> Transcriptions are about capturing the content in text; an gosh could we use that for img too.
> 
> I could easily reuse alt, longdesc an transcript on the same image and have three very different blocks.
> 
> -Charles
> 
> On Feb 14, 2012, at 4:34 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Well, this is why I wanted the attribute to be called @transcription
>> rather than @transcript, because it should contain everything a user
>> needs to read in order to get the same "experience" that a user gets
>> who watches the film. So to me transcript = captions + descriptions
>> (roughly).
>> 
>> Silvia.
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:24 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>>> Does seem that a *description* of a video and a *transcript* are quite distinct.
>>> 
>>> In this video, a transcript might end:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> heedi hoo! heedie hoo!
>>> 
>>> Do-NUT!
>>> 
>>> a description might be more�informative.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> David Singer
>>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:04:57 UTC