- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 15:52:47 +1000
- To: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> wrote: > John Foliot wrote: >> >> Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:16 AM, David Singer<singer@apple.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mar 30, 2012, at 14:52 , Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We keep talking about "long text descriptions for videos" and >>>>> "transcripts" as separate things. There is an implied assumption >>> >>> that >>>>> >>>>> we need two different solutions for these, which I would like to >>>>> challenge. >> >> >> Sorry I have not been able to participate more fully up until now, but >> with >> a household move this past weekend, I am now only digging out. >> >> >> Silvia, I would like to ask you what you believe the "longer textual >> description" does for non-sighted users, and why authors should be >> providing >> this information. > > > I would also (and I don't mean to single Silvia out here or anything but I > am just interested in the general issue). I want to see clear use cases. Sure. In my understanding, the one long description that we link to the video element (or any other element) is a full text replacement for the element primarily for those who cannot consume the element (i.e. accessibility users), but also able to be consumed by anyone else. The main target, however, is the accessibility users - that other needs are satisfied with the same text is only a side effect. For example: let's assume a deaf-blind user A and a sighted and hearing user B. A cannot watch a video that is embedded in a page. However, the Web developer makes available a text document that contains a full description of the video and links it to the video, so that a braille reader will be able to give user A the same experience as user B, if user B was to watch the video. Now, as it turns out, user B is in the office and not able to watch the video. But because we make the full description available to sighted users, too, B can follow the link and read the document instead of watching the video. Both user A and B are able to "scan" the document to their needs and abilities. Both are able to talk about the video to a sighted and hearing user C, who has actually watched the video, since all of them have essentially received the same experience. This is how I envisage the long description to work and this is why I don't see a difference between the document that the long description should link to for a video and a transcript (where transcript is defined as more inclusive than just the dialog). HTH. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Friday, 6 April 2012 05:53:35 UTC