[Bug 10642] No alternative text description for video key frame (poster)


--- Comment #75 from Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com> 2010-11-15 07:22:35 UTC ---
> However, my argument is not that we do not need a text alternative for the
> poster. I do argue that we need that. But I also argue that when we have a text
> replacement for the video, we can include the text replacement for the poster
> in that piece of text - it does not have to be separate.

It does have to be separate, because the purpose of the poster and the purpose
of the video content are distinct. For one thing, the poster could be content
not found in the video, like rendered text of the video's title. For another,
the poster itself serves the purpose of arousing interest among users in
playing the video.

People who can't see still want to know _why_ this content is important before
playing it. If that information is not important enough for a blind user, then
it should follow that it provides no meaningful information to a sighted user.
In which case, @poster should be removed, because it adds no value to HTML5. Of
course none of that is true, which is why the issue was raised.

Worse, proposing to use one field for these distinct purposes is something that
doesn't really belong in the specification. It indicates we're not making a
technical decision, but rather just routing around damage. It's the kind of
advice that belongs in WCAG techniques, but only after the HTML WG has failed
to provide the necessary functionality for users. Half-steps like this have no
place in the spec itself.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Monday, 15 November 2010 07:22:45 UTC