- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:47:19 -0400
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
David Singer writes: > > On Mar 20, 2012, at 15:20 , Janina Sajka wrote: > > > > > Not at all. What use is a page of videos if you have to open each one to > > decide whether you wanted to view it in the first place? > > > > But that's not an accessibility problem; that's a problem for everyone. If no-one can tell what the videos or about, or why they visited the page, it's just badly designed content. The poster is not some 'magic key' which uniquely, or even often, provides that information. For all users the purpose and content of the page needs to be clear, and it usually is, in a myriad ways - the tagging, the other elements, names, site names, etc. It is not true that if you don't 'get' the poster, you are doomed; it's usually fluff, simply there because the first frame (the default poster) is often black. Ah, "usually," "often," I notice you don't say "always." So, it's there. It's an image right there on screen that, by your argument, is at least sometimes not black and not fluff. That's enough reason to require the markup mechanism. I have no problem marking the black and the fluff "presentational," but there's no accepting a global exemption for alternative text (including long descriptions) for ANY substantive image on screen. If it's so vanishingly insignificant--pull it out. Get rid of it entirely--or support the alternative description mechanisms a11y requires. But don't tell us we're keeping it, but you can't participate. Janina
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 22:47:48 UTC