Re: Acessibility of <audio> and <video>

Anne van Kesteren 2008-08-25 22.38:

> 
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:30:50 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> Given that the long term goal is universal video support, that 
>>> doesn't seem too bad. Similar to people using libraries for Web Forms 
>>> 2.0 in browsers that do not support it yet.
>>
>> Except here I have to work around designed-in limitations of the spec 
>> instead of obvious legacy issues.  Which raises the question of why 
>> we're designing in those limitations.
> 
> I don't really follow I'm afraid. The idea behind using <video> is to 
> show a video. If all browsers have video support (long term) there's no 
> need to fallback. At that point authors don't have to do much more than 
> <video src=geweldig></video> and make sure the geweldig resource is 
> accessible.

The point with <img /> is to show an image. And all browsers 
support <img>, so how come we ask for @alt text?

Besides, videos on todays web more and more get double function: 
video and photo functionality in one.

Click on the photo shot, and you get to see a video footage from 
the event when the photo was taken.

But where is the @alt text, for the photo part of the functinoality?

<video> anticipates this double functionality, by having a 
poster="" attribute which can link to a photo which litterally is 
meant to attract the viewer to that video.

But does <video> include a fallback text for the poster image? No.

In the furture world of accessible videos, what is it that shall 
attract the text browser user or the screen reader user to go an 
"see" that video then?

So, really, photo and video converges. (Youtube is full of 
"slidehows".)
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 22:51:05 UTC