- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:01:38 +0200
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:47:20 +0200, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote: >> I'd like to see some user testing of this issue, and some documentation >> of existing video sites and their accessibility features. Are there >> any existing video sites that provide textual alternatives for videos? >> If so, we can look at how they do it and, through user testing, >> evaluate how successful their approach is. > > Just wondering (as usual again) why, if we're working on a new set of > language building blocks, we need to look at current practices that use > the limited vocabulary available today...whatever sites currently do is > obviously related to how HTML4/XHTML1.x handles video and such. Why > should that inform how this new and improved language should handle it > as well? But yeh, let's go along with that... If the new language requires a completely different architecture it is unlikely to be adopted. Or maybe it is adopted, but the accessibility features are not being put to use. I think it will be easier for features to become adopted if they don't require a lot of rethinking, but rather can be incrementally deployed. I think that's one of the reasons it's important to look how authors are solving problems now. I suppose it's a bit like social science. Getting statistics on what's currently being done to see how we can improve the situation without radically changing it. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Saturday, 28 July 2007 13:02:45 UTC