W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > July 2007

Re: conflation of issues or convergence of interests?

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:41:02 +0900
Message-Id: <EF4DE8DD-4A2A-4D81-9407-33A75278D641@w3.org>
Cc: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>


Le 29 juil. 2007 à 15:31, Lachlan Hunt a écrit :
> There are known problems with the object fallback mechanism in all  
> the major browsers, and it would be silly to ignore that evidence.

It would be better to point at resources which demonstrate this  
assertion separating

* bad implementations
* proper object element issues

> We should investigate what has caused these problems in the past  
> and try to understand why, so that we don't repeat the same mistakes.

In this case, the study has to be extended to authoring tools.

* What are the editing scenarios when adding an object (media)  
element to an html page?
   - amaya
   - bbedit
   - contribute
   - dreamweaver
   - expression web
   - frontpage
   - golive (see below)
   - movable type (see below)
   - mozilla composer
   - nvu
   - pagespinner
   - textmate
   (many more here)
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_editor#Comparison_of_HTML_editors

* How addition of fallback content is handled by authoring tools?

* What tutorials promote when editing object elements?
   Examples:
   http://www.alistapart.com/articles/byebyeembed
   http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay
   http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashembedcagematch
   http://www.apple.com/quicktime/tutorials/embed.html
   http://developer.apple.com/quicktime/compatibility.html
   http://developer.apple.com/internet/ieembedprep.html
   http://developer.apple.com/documentation/QuickTime/Conceptual/ 
QTScripting_HTML/
   http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms535859.aspx
   http://www.w3schools.com/media/media_object.asp
   http://webdesign.about.com/od/htmltags/p/bltags_object.htm


> It might sound like a good idea for a UA to give the user full  
> control to be able to switch between an object and its alternative,  
> but that is a long way from having a usable product that users  
> understand and are comfortable with.  Anything that requires a  
> major paradigm shift for users is unlikely to succeed.

What is "user"? They are different categories with different skills.
 From my guess, (but it would be better to have html authoring  
practices testing for this), when people are editing HTML in many  
cases, they don't type code.

* In HTML email, they drag and drop a multimedia object at the right  
position or they click the button "attach" (or any local variation,  
"joindre" in French).

* In Movable Type, you can upload data, depending on the type of  
data, it will propose a piece of code. For example for a sound, it  
will be a link
   <a href="http://example.org/fool.au">Download file</a>.
   I haven't looked closely at the code which was created when  
inserting a movie, I should dig into the perl code of MT

* In Golive, a drag and drop will generate for a movie, without  
touching anything else.
<p><object classid="clsid:02BF25D5-8C17-4B23-BC80-D3488ABDDC6B"  
codebase="http://www.apple.com/qtactivex/qtplugin.cab" height="240"  
width="320">
	<param name="src" value="foo.mov" />
	<param name="autoplay" value="true" />
	<param name="controller" value="false" />
	<embed height="240" pluginspage="http://www.apple.com/quicktime/ 
download/" src="foo.mov" type="video/quicktime" width="320"  
controller="false" autoplay="true"></embed>
	</object></p>



-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 01:41:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:15:43 GMT