FW: 答复: ISSUE-194

Forwarded FYI

JF

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Foliot [mailto:john@foliot.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 3:38 PM
> To: 'Edward O'Connor'; public-html@w3.org
> Subject: RE: 答复: ISSUE-194
> 
> Edward O'Connor wrote:
> >
> > > Do you mean that WG should choose between
> > > "defer 194-6 to HTML.Next" and "mint transcript with media
> element"?
> >
> > I expect there will be 3 Change Proposals to choose between: the two
> > you
> > mention[1][2], and a third (Silvia's "Introduction of a
> @transcript=URL
> > attribute" proposal)[3].
> >
> > Right, the [1] proposal advocates deferring the addition of a
> mechanism
> > for programmatic association of transcripts with media elements in
> HTML
> > to HTML.next.
> 
> Hi Eric, Ted,
> 
> While it is certainly within the right of the Working Group to consider
> deferring this important accessibility requirement to HTML.next, I
> think that you will find that the Accessibility Task Force will find a
> strong objection to this suggestion, and when it comes to the
> (evitable?) WBS Survey those strong objections will be lodged there at
> that time.  As such Eric, while the no-change Change Proposal appears
> to still be in play, in practical considerations I think that the 2
> Change Proposals that actually advance a solution moving forward will
> be the ones to investigate and discuss more fully.
> 
> >
> > > And the transcript will be integrated with media element, right?
> >
> > Yes, the [2] and [3] proposals advocate such a feature, though with a
> > somewhat different design.
> 
> One of the concerns that I and others had during the lengthy
> discussions we've had on this topic was of "integration", both in terms
> of how access to a transcript would be seamlessly communicated and
> acted upon by all users (including users with disabilities). There
> emerged an implied understanding that any solution should/would allow
> for a "discovery, selection and activation method" (a.k.a. a menu
> item/switch) that would be part of the media controls.
> 
> The other concern was over the placement of the actual link-to-
> transcript, and here both proposals have different possible ways of
> doing this, but both allow for the linkage to be enclosed within the
> opening and closing <video> (and <audio>) tags: one because @transcript
> would take a direct URL, the other would be by allowing the <a
> href="transcript.html" id="foo"> link inside of the element:
> 
>    <video transcript="foo">
>       <a href="transcript.html" id="foo">
>    </video>
> 
> We wanted to be sure that in the use-case where third party authors did
> a "view source, copy and paste" of a video, that all of the required
> assets (and associated URLs) be captured at that time. There will also
> need to be some good authoring guidance to go hand-in-hand with this
> (for example the recommendation to always specify fully resolved URLs,
> rather than relative paths). More specifics are in each Draft CP.
> 
> 
> >
> > > And how about 194-2C, what's the relationship between 2C and
> > > alt/longdesc of media element?
> >
> > I assume you're referring to [2]. This is a proposal for ISSUE-194,
> not
> > for ISSUE-203.
> 
> Technically correct, however there has been some apparent confusion
> over the roles of "long textual descriptions" of a video asset versus
> the "transcript" of a video asset.  Issue 194 is dealing with the
> programmatic linkage of a Transcript to a <video> element, while Issue
> 203 seeks to ensure that a method is present that allows for a short
> and long textual description of the movie itself:
> 
> Short (accessible name):
>  Oceans 11
> 
> Long (accessible description):
>  "Danny Ocean and his eleven accomplices plan to rob three Las
> Vegas
> casinos simultaneously. Stars: George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Julia
> Roberts.
> Director: Steven Soderbergh."
> 
> Transcript (alternative presentation):
>  "One con under escort. Open gate one.
> 
>  Man walking.
> 
>  Open gate two.
> 
>  - Let's go. Face the wall.
> 
>  - Got one under escort.
> 
>  - Good morning.
> 
>  - Morning.
> 
>  - State your name for the record.
> 
>  - Daniel Ocean.
> 
>  - Thank you. The purpose of this hearing is to determine..."
> 
> (Poster description*):
>  "The movie's main characters (listed from foreground to
> background and right-to-left: George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon,
> Andy Garcia, and Julia Roberts) are standing outside of what appears to
> be a Las Vegas casino, however the marquee reads "Ocean's Eleven". The
> poster also reads: "3 casinos, 11 guys, 150 million bucks. Ready to win
> big?" along the top, and then finally "Place your bets" at the bottom
> left corner."
> http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/product_images/1020/189540.1020.A.jpg
> 
> (* we do not yet have a means of delivering on this requirement)
> 
> 
> >
> > Both nonzero-edit proposals ([2] and [3]) allow for linking to HTML
> or
> > text files, regardless of what server is hosting what.
> >
> > Any method of indirection will be more complex than a direct link,
> but
> > there are several other design considerations that argue for using an
> > indirect link for these use cases, as I argue in [2].
> >
> > > So I think using URL is better, and what is important difference or
> > > rational for 2 options of transcript?
> >
> > I hope the text of all three change proposals is clear enough to
> > establish the design tradeoffs of the different approaches. If it's
> > not,
> > please provide feedback so Silvia and/or I can improve our proposals!
> 
> +1. Both Ted's and Silvia's proposals have strengths and weaknesses,
> and so collectively we need to examine and weigh up those differences
> and choose which we believe best meets our requirements. From an
> accessibility perspective, both proposals meet the use-case
> requirements we have brought forward from the Accessibility Task Force
> level.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> JF
>

Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 22:59:43 UTC