W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > December 2010

Re: DRAFT analysis of fallback mechanisms for embedded content ACTION-66

From: Martin Kliehm <martin.kliehm@namics.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 12:22:17 +0100
Message-ID: <4CF8D2E9.2090200@namics.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
CC: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Silvia,

On 01.12.2010 05:13, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> In fact,<video>  also doesn't have @summary or @alt.

That's true. At least <video> has a poster image where Everett filed a 
bug and escalated an issue that an alt-text is missing. But in 
yesterday's telcon we found that an @alt for a poster image will likely 
be different from a @label (what I called @summary in my draft). Also it 
is debatable if a video needs even more accessible fallback content, 
like a short description or @longdesc.

>> -<source>  has an implicit @label and @language for closed captions defined
>> in the closed format.
> Are you talking about the case where captions are provided inside the
> media resource? Note that they are all exposed through a TimedTrack
> object and the kind, label and language will be available then as IDL
> attributes.

Yes. Cool, good to know that!

>> -<track>  has explicit @label and @language attributes.  @label is dynamic
>> and can by changed by script.  @language can include sgn-X (sign language).
> When you say "sign language", you are implying that<track>  will also
> be used for external video (and audio) alternative content. This is,
> in fact, not the case at this moment, see
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9452 . The current
> <track>  specification only refers to alternative text tracks. We will
> still have to come up with a solution to audio and video alternative
> content.

OK, though it's good that these use cases are on your radar.

Thanks for your reply!
Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 11:22:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:49 UTC