RE: CP, ISSUE-30: Link longdesc to role of img [Was: hypothetical question on longdesc]

>> it still conveys the same information as a short text alternative for the video would. That's all that matters.
It might, and then again it might not. If it doesn't it needs its own description. That's what matters.

-----Original Message-----
From: Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com] 
Sent: 21 March 2012 23:04
To: Sean Hayes
Cc: David Singer; janina@rednote.net; John Foliot; "'xn--mlform-iua@målform.no'"; rubys@intertwingly.net; laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com; mjs@apple.com; Paul Cotton; public-html-a11y@w3.org; public-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: CP, ISSUE-30: Link longdesc to role of img [Was: hypothetical question on longdesc]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> Have a look at a very typical usage (where I, alas, can't watch the video): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17457845 .  That image is just a better initial place-holder than the first frame - which hasn't been fetched yet, when the page loads.
>
> Good example. The image there is not in fact a frame from the video at all, although similar in theme and clearly from the same event.
>
> I think we have clearly established that at least some of the time there may be an image displayed which is distinct from the video content, and I don't see anyone arguing to remove the possibility of this distinction.
>
> Since we also all appear to agree that the idea here is to provide in text all of the information available visually, then there is a clear use case to allow the means to describe both parts *when they are distinct*,


Being distinct resources does not mean they convey distinct
information. Even if the image in David's example is not from the
video (I can't confirm this either ;-), it still conveys the same
information as a short text alternative for the video would. That's
all that matters.

Silvia.

Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 23:13:01 UTC