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

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

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 16:11:51 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1P1iD9-0001ow-0c@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #37 from Ashley Ward <ash@netality.com> 2010-10-01 16:11:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> (In reply to comment #32)

> As for the jump-rope example in comment #30, devil's advocate here... If the
> webmasters of that particular school chose a key frame from a different part of
> the video to use as the poster (a key-frame which did not contain an image of
> your daughter), then you would be just as lost *with* an alternative text
> attribute as without.

Yes, but a sighted user would be just as lost. At least if there is alt text
available then a non-sighted user has the same chance of not being lost as a
sighted user (if you see what I'm saying - probably not explaining it very

> Regardless, the poster is "content", and content must be equipped with channels
> to describe it to users who are not capable of viewing the original.  However,
> the addition of a new element (eg. <poster>) is always going to be resisted by
> the Editors, at least initially, because of the danger of syntax creep and the
> need to provide new documentation for each which will inevitably delay the
> recommendation of HTML5 even longer.

Agreed - hence in Comment #20 I suggest accomplishing this by adding a
posteralt attribute to the video element. Much simpler and has the advantage of
being backwards compatible with the existing spec and UA implementations.
Everyone's a winner! :)

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, 1 October 2010 16:11:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:46 UTC