W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

Are @posters background images? [Was: Text description for @poster]

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:43:06 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEhSh3c31JOaQc_SRNZZ0+z47gafzGkUv5AXc2khDGW-xJ8qyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Léonie Watson <lwatson@nomensa.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, "'xn--mlform-iua@målform.no'" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, rubys@intertwingly.net, laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com, mjs@apple.com, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, public-html-a11y@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 2:47 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
> I am also curious to hear feedback on the idea of conceptually treating the
> @poster image as a background image of the video bounding box, rather than a
> foreground image, as if that idea has any credence

Seems counterintuitive to me. Is there a rationale? How does this help
you think about things?

I used to have to integrate web video players with editorially
specified placeholder images. Using CSS background images instead of
<img> would have been an unwelcome conflation of content and skinning
which need to be kept distinct to allow restyling.

The idea that background images in the styling layer need text
alternatives suggests to me that there is functionality missing in the
content layer that discourages separation of concerns. Maybe the
discussion about responsive images, which are easier to specify in CSS
than HTML, is relevant here.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Saturday, 24 March 2012 15:43:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:31 UTC