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: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 23:40:29 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1P2udx-0001ws-Vk@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #45 from Everett Zufelt <everett@zufelt.ca> 2010-10-04 23:40:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #44)
> I think Maciej is right, but I wonder how common it will be for the description
> of the multimedia (audio/video) to be significantly different from the
> description of the poster.  I guess it's possible that the poster conveys
> *additional* information over and above what the movie contains, but I would
> have thought this was an unlikely case, and perhaps even one that we don't need
> to encourage.

By not providing an alt attribute for the poster we are not discouraging its
use for any purpose, we are only making it more difficult for authors to
provide accessible alternatives for the way in which they use poster.

> I guess I am more keen on descriptive and transcriptive text for the movie, and
> once we have that cleanly done, then ask the question "do we need it *as well*
> for the poster?"

I don't see why we would ask if we need to make the poster accessible "as well"
as the video.  As far as I see it the poster and video are two distinct pieces
of content, in the same way that the cover of a DVD case is not the video
within, the poster is not the video.  Is it true that often, perhaps in most
cases, that the poster will be a frame, likely the first frame, of the video,
yes.  Does this mean that it is not important for authors to be able to provide
an alternate textual equivalency for the poster, no.

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 Monday, 4 October 2010 23:40:33 UTC

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