- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:43:06 +0000
- 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