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

Re: Text description for @poster (was RE: CP, ISSUE-30: Link longdesc to role of img [Was: hypothetical question on longdesc])

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:19:49 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2=rhNS2hka369+TAokGgMspgwmvW2oeC5M8J3CpWVHrWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, 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 Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> Silvia Pfeiffer writes:
>>
>> Have you heard of duck typing? It states that "When I see a bird that
>> walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call
>> that bird a duck." Similarly here, when I see an image with video
>> controls that behaves exactly like a video, it *is* a video for all
>> intents and purposes.
>>
>
>
> I now understand the intent among some here to incorporate even an
> extraneous image provided by the video element as "part of the video."
> Never mind the taxonomy, then. How, Silvia, are those of us who rely on
> alternative access to understand that that extraneous image, with its
> "misleading" content, is what it is. If you make it part of the video
> description, you entangle the video with its UI advertising. The sighted
> user will have no trouble distinguishing the two, but it seems
> alternative content users will have that trouble.

Actually, that's not the case. A sighted user will not be able to
distinguish the two either. For the sighted user the "misleading"
image is the video. There is no other image presented. It is just that
picture with the video controls rendered on top.

> That's not supposed to
> happen with alternative text presentation. We're to keep the semantics
> clear.

Misleading is not supposed to happen for anyone. But if the author
intentionally misleads the sighted user, then they should be expected
to also put a description in the short text alternative that has
similar misleading information. It's the same semantics.

In the long text alternative for the video - just like when you're
watching the video - the real content of the video would need to be
transcribed.


> Until the user chooses to "play" the video, it's just on screen
> advertising. The two should not be confounded, whatever you choose to
> call the componant parts.

Agreed. However, I don't think they are.

Regards,
Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 00:20:44 UTC

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