- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 00:03:40 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10642 --- Comment #72 from Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> 2010-11-14 00:03:38 UTC --- (In reply to comment #70) > (In reply to comment #69) > > > > However, my argument is not that we do not need a text alternative for the > > poster. I do argue that we need that. But I also argue that when we have a text > > replacement for the video, we can include the text replacement for the poster > > in that piece of text - it does not have to be separate. > > > > So, as an example: an alternative text for film festival videos may be: > > "Video poster shows .....blah. Video is about .... blah." > > If the poster alt text is not separate it will be much harder to detect > programmatically. So tools like a validator / a11y checker / similar can�t help > authors by checking for video elements that have a poster image but is missing > alt text for the poster image. Like when the author forgot to add one. Yes, but it is also impossible to render two different alternative texts for a single element unit. It's not like the <video> element and the poster are two separate elements - they are a single entity that is presented to sighted users as a single object on screen. How should two different alternative texts for a single object even be rendered? -- 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 Sunday, 14 November 2010 00:03:42 UTC