- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 02:10:09 -0700
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
On May 23, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > > When you have a video element on the page, yes. Note that I said "when > used without an actual <video> element". > > Here is an example where there is no video element on the page: > > <a href="video.avi">Download the video</a> > <transcript src="transcript.html">This is a video transcript</transcript> > > A search engine can discover this as a video transcript even without a > video element present on the page. Since the transcript is in no way associated with a specific video in this example, it's not clear why it is helpful to use a <transcript> element rather than an <a> element. It seems like the main effect is to prevent users from clicking on the transcript link. And since the transcript is not associated with the vide content, browsers have no way to offer a better UI. And the search engine has no way to know what video this transcript is a transcript for, so it's not clear how it benefits from knowing it is a transcript. Thus, I don't see how your example shows the benefits of a <transcript> element. Can you clarify please? What specifically would work better with this markup example than with <a>? Thanks, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 09:10:41 UTC