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

[Bug 10642] No alternative text description for video key frame (poster)

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 01:16:31 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PGiFj-0001us-1P@jessica.w3.org>

Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |mattmay@adobe.com

--- Comment #60 from Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com> 2010-11-12 01:16:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #59)
> Cargo-cult accessibility?

First citation by Ian:
> "people said headers/id were a good way to do accessibility, and so that was 
> emulated, without understanding what was being done."


Applied to programming:

The upshot is that Ian appears to be saying that the visual information
presented in a keyframe couldn't possibly have semantic value to someone who
cannot see it, and as a result, those foolish enough to suggest such a thing
are fundamentally no more advanced than bush people. 

Which leaves one to wonder why an image presented via <img> or <input
type="image"> should accept fallback content, but not an image that iconifies a
video. I suspect the answer to this would be because Ian feels @alt is also
"cargo-cult accessibility," in which case we should just fast-forward to the
long, worthless process of escalation leading to a WG decision, followed by
another fork between the W3C and WHATWG versions of HTML5, rather than
re-litigate one of the most basic requirements for accessibility of web

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 01:16:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:47 UTC