W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > March 2008

Re: review off the different resolutions on my comments

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:13:49 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0803211613n6dd1abcew87eed882c7a6100f@mail.gmail.com>
To: "aurélien levy" <aurelien.levy@free.fr>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:00 AM, aurélien levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr> wrote:

>  Comment 8: alternative to text with external text ?
>  Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0009.html
>  (Issue ID: 2385)
>  Ok so I can say that a video is an alternative to text only if it was embed directly on the same page containing same information as the text ?
>  You don't give me an answer on how it's changing the user experience in regard of the situation where the text is directly in the page and video is not. As far as I know it may be an even better user experience if the video is played in an external player because this way user can have more control on the settings
>  ----------------------------------------------------------

A video can only be an alternative to text on the page if the video
was shot for that specific purpose and is clearly labeled as such.  In
your example, the video was not shot as an alternative to the text on
the page, but is in fact the original interview from which the text
was drawn.  So it fails to be a video alternative (or media
alternative) to the text.  Also, it was not labeled as an alternative
for accessibility reasons.   Whether or not it is embedded in the page
is not the relevant issue.   In both of your examples they would have
to be captioned.   They would also have to have audio descriptions if
there was any video information conveyed (and there was any pauses in
the interview sufficient to do a video description - which may be
Received on Friday, 21 March 2008 23:14:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:10 UTC