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

[Bug 13432] Editorial changes to The Video element (1 of 5)

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:03:22 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1R8ujK-0000N8-VK@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #14 from Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> 2011-09-28 14:03:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > From a purely technical standpoint where their needs relate to video I can
> > personally not see a big difference between blind and visually impaired users,
> Low vision users would want the ability to change contrast in captions,
> increase font-size of captions and sub-titles, re-position captions/sub-titles,
> etc. None of those requirements would matter a whit to the blind user (who
> would likely want/need text-based captions, as opposed to image based captions,
> so that they could also be rendered to alternative devices such as braille
> output bars). Also, low-vision users generally can still see the
> display/monitor, while totally blind users simply can't, so for those 2
> user-groups their *entire* consumption experience is radically different. 
> > nor between deaf and hard-of-hearing users.
> Some deaf users will need/want sign language translations, whilst for those who
> have diminished hearing (those "elderly folks") sign language (for the
> majority) will remain a foreign language. Equally, Clean Audio would only be a
> useful requirement for the H-o-H community. Once again, a significant
> differentiator is the fact that the H-o-H community can hear *something*, while
> the deaf  user cannot, so *their* entire consumption experience will also be
> totally different.

Are these the only additional communities that should be mentioned?  What
about, as Hixie mentioned, those with discalculia viewing videos with simple
mathematics, or those with seizures viewing videos that may flash or switch
often, or those with dislexia viewing text-heavy videos (for which captions may
not help), or those with any number of other relevant disabilities that can
potentially be accounted for and addressed?

As both Silvia and Hixie have asked, what is the criteria for deciding which to
include?  If there is none besides "I know it when I see it", are you willing
to review all such mentions of disabled groups and ensure that they're
including all the groups you deem necessary?

Finally, recall that there is always a balance between detail and terseness. 
Less text is better, because it's easier to read and understand.  More text is
better, because it provides more detail.  Are you certain that these additional
details are necessary and counterbalance the loss of clarity and
ease-of-reading caused by the additional text?  Might it be better to just have
token references that illustrate the issues, as exist currently, and have a
separate, fuller guide that goes into the details of accommodating many more

> I think that your recent response serves to illustrate why specifically
> mentioning these 4 communities improves the prose, as it then opens the door to
> better explanation to "authors", who despite the Editor's assertions, are
> actually smarter than he is apparently willing to give them credit for.
> Deliberately *not* mentioning the different communities here (and their
> attendant accommodation strategies) does not have the effect of reducing
> confusion, but rather perpetuating it.

Is there also confusion perpetuated by not mentioning the three groups I've
listed above?  If not, why not, given your previous arguments?

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 Wednesday, 28 September 2011 14:03:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:02:04 UTC