RE: Text description for @poster (was RE: CP, ISSUE-30: Link longdesc to role of img [Was: hypothetical question on longdesc])

Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
"Actually, that's not the case. A sighted user will not be able to distinguish the two either. For the sighted user the "misleading"
image is the video. There is no other image presented. It is just that picture with the video controls rendered on top."

	So if I were to ask a sighted person to describe what they were looking at, they might say something like: "A place holding image above some video controls". If I were to ask them to describe the image, do you think they would explain what the video was about, or tell me what the image looked like?

Léonie.



-- 
Nomensa - humanising technology

Léonie Watson, Director of Accessibility
tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333
mob: +44 (0)792 116 8551
twitter: @we_are_Nomensa @LeonieWatson

Nomensa Email Disclaimer: http://www.nomensa.com/email-disclaimer

-----Original Message-----
From: Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com] 
Sent: 27 March 2012 01:20
To: Silvia Pfeiffer; John Foliot; Charles Pritchard; Léonie Watson; David Singer; Sean Hayes; "'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: Text description for @poster (was RE: CP, ISSUE-30: Link longdesc to role of img [Was: hypothetical question on longdesc])

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> Silvia Pfeiffer writes:
>>
>> Have you heard of duck typing? It states that "When I see a bird that 
>> walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I 
>> call that bird a duck." Similarly here, when I see an image with 
>> video controls that behaves exactly like a video, it *is* a video for 
>> all intents and purposes.
>>
>
>
> I now understand the intent among some here to incorporate even an 
> extraneous image provided by the video element as "part of the video."
> Never mind the taxonomy, then. How, Silvia, are those of us who rely 
> on alternative access to understand that that extraneous image, with 
> its "misleading" content, is what it is. If you make it part of the 
> video description, you entangle the video with its UI advertising. The 
> sighted user will have no trouble distinguishing the two, but it seems 
> alternative content users will have that trouble.

Actually, that's not the case. A sighted user will not be able to distinguish the two either. For the sighted user the "misleading"
image is the video. There is no other image presented. It is just that picture with the video controls rendered on top.

> That's not supposed to
> happen with alternative text presentation. We're to keep the semantics 
> clear.

Misleading is not supposed to happen for anyone. But if the author intentionally misleads the sighted user, then they should be expected to also put a description in the short text alternative that has similar misleading information. It's the same semantics.

In the long text alternative for the video - just like when you're watching the video - the real content of the video would need to be transcribed.


> Until the user chooses to "play" the video, it's just on screen 
> advertising. The two should not be confounded, whatever you choose to 
> call the componant parts.

Agreed. However, I don't think they are.

Regards,
Silvia.

Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 07:53:29 UTC