- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 22:58:41 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10642 --- Comment #68 from John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> 2010-11-12 22:58:39 UTC --- (In reply to comment #66) > Agree with David; IMO the poster is only an interstitial element at best. > Accessibility for the video element is best done through subtitling, linked > transcripts, etc. Sorry Frank, but must disagree. Given the fact that the author can specify *any* image as a poster frame image, it becomes content in-and-of-itself: there is no mandate or technical means to ensure that the image used is a frame from the video, or that it even directly relates to the video. It may be *presumed* that this would be the normal way that authors would use a poster frame image (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10642#c22), but there is no practical or programmatic means of ensuring this: consider a Film Festival site, where each film's "poster" would be a branding exercise for the Festival and have nothing to do with the film itself - the image might even include (yech) text... the point is, we have no idea *what* kind of image will be used here, and further have no way of 'policing' how a poster image will be used. As such, the image used as the poster frame requires a means of directly linking the 'alternative text' for that image to the image. Silvia Pfeiffer suggested: > All that would be required is an extra sentence to encourage users to > explain the poster content as part of the alternative text of the video > element. (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10642#c62) Once again, this presumes that the image is directly related to the video, a presumption we should not be making. -- 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 22:58:42 UTC