- From: Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:06:42 -0800
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Cc: 'Maciej Stachowiak' <mjs@apple.com>, 'Martin Kliehm' <martin.kliehm@namics.com>, 'Silvia Pfeiffer' <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
John - On Dec 3, 2010, at 1:35 PM, John Foliot wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >> Why is that better than including that text in the video summary? >> >> It seems like the poster frame and your suggested label/summary text >> both serve the same purpose - helping the user decide if they want to >> play the video. > > This may not always be true. > > >> They are auxiliary content. Describing the poster frame >> seems like an overly literal-minded approach to equivalent content. > > I have repeatedly suggested (and offered as example) image files that > would serve as poster frames that contain content that is not related to a > video. This can be doubly problematic when the image contains text (a > likely probability). It is for this reasons that the image requires the > ability to have an alt value. I again urge all to review > http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/#replacement > > >> What is needed is a summary of the video that equally allows non- >> sighted users to decide if they want to play it, just as the poster >> frame (whether explicit or built-in) does for sighted users. > > This presumes that the poster frame will always be chosen to elicit that > call-to-action. I am trying to explain that this may not always be the > case - that the image chosen by any given author could serve an > alternative purpose (whether branding, informational, or other) that is > conceptually unrelated to a specific video, but meets other author > needs/goals. > > I agree that the video should have a summary, and even leave open the door > that it could be explicit (@summary) or 'relative' (aria-describedby) - > where here the Summary would appear as text on the page for both sighted > and non-sighted users. > > However that summary does not serve as the @alt value for the image being > used - it can't, as then you are mixing oranges and apples. My video is > not about "Stanford University - this video is closed captioned" it is > about (whatever it is about). I have no disagreement that the author > *could* add this information into a summary, but I must also concede that > they might not, or that the text example I am using here is an imperfect > example What about a video that includes the "poster image" as the first frame? Inserting an image into a video file doesn't magically make it relevant to the rest of the content. In your case, the video still is not about "Stanford University - this video is closed captioned", that is just what the first frame says. From the user's perspective, the <video> element is exactly the same when the page loads whether the "poster image" is a separate file or the first frame of the video. Why do you think the two cases require different markup? How will this lead to a better user experience for anyone? eric
Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 22:07:16 UTC