W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > July 2011

[Bug 13273] Clarify text in media element user interface section

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 19:12:13 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Qhno5-0000qG-Iq@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #7 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> 2011-07-15 19:12:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > Then there's the issue of a person not wanting the controls, regardless.
> > 
> > Let's say they have a video they want to autoplay when the page loads. Doesn't
> > matter if you agree with this or not, that's what they want. 
> > 
> > So they remove the controls attribute, but if the user's scripting is disabled,
> > the control is added back. They literally have no way of keeping the control
> > turned off, because if scripting is disabled, they can't disable the attribute
> > _with_ scripting.
> Weight that scenario against the scenario the clause is intended to address,
> where an author omits @controls because they're planning to use script to
> define custom controls.
> I think the latter scenario is more likely, and more importantly, more annoying
> for the user.
> It's also annoying for the user if a video autoplays without controls to stop
> it.  So, both scenarios end up being better for the user if the controls are
> automatically shown.  The minor benefit to authors doesn't seem to outweigh
> this, in my opinion.

But you're removing the options for the web page author or developer. You're
making a value judgment for everyone. 

Right now, if I do a custom control, it's a piece of cake to remove the
controls attribute and it's gone. In fact, I have to in every browser but

This isn't unusual for web developers--we're used to having to hide and show
things based on scripting being disabled or not. 

However, now we don't know if the controls will display or not because of
browser differences. Frankly, we have to code the removeAttribute anyway
because of these differences--the functionality buys us absolutely nothing.

The fallback functionality does, however, override the wishes of those people
who, for whatever reason, want a video or audio element to play when a page is
loaded. For whatever reason.

But that's really a separate bug. Right now, though, I see different behaviors
with different browsers. Is the different behavior because of bugs? Or because
of misunderstanding about what's expected of the browsers?

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 Friday, 15 July 2011 19:12:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:55 UTC