- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:01:26 +0100
- To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Eric Carlson" <eric.carlson@apple.com>
- Cc: "Geoff Freed" <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Frank Olivier" <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>
On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:41:56 +0100, Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 2, 2010, at 6:31 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > >> >> For #3 there is not much to do actually - just having a means to >> switch between resources would be sufficient. That means could be a >> button underneath the video or a second tab with the video and lets >> the user change between the main video and it's auditory-only >> counterpart. I wonder if we even need special accessibility features >> for this. >> > The idea we have long talked about to use media queries on a <source> > element to label the accessibility features of its resource could be > very useful here. It would allow an author to include videos with and > without open audio descriptions in the markup: > > <video controls> > <source src="trailer_with_open_captions.m4v" > media="accessibility(audiodescription:yes)" > > <source src="trailer.m4v"> > </video> > > and the user agent will automatically choose the captioned file if the > user's preferences say they want them. Anything that overloads <source> will suffer from the problem that users can't switch between versions once one has been selected. The resource selection algorithm is already quite messy. Today, <source> is supposed to be used for equivalent resources where only the format differs. For alternative tracks, I think we really need something different. I'd say <track>, but that's really for *additional* tracks so far, not alternatives... -- Philip Jägenstedt Core Developer Opera Software
Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 10:00:51 UTC