- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 16:11:51 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10642 --- 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 well!) > 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