Re: Is longdesc a good solution? (was: Acessibility of <audio> and <video>)

David Poehlman 2008-09-09 17.55:

> If a manuscript is available, I don't see the need for a transcript which to 
> me seems redundant.


That would be depend on what the author wanted to present also. 
E.g. consider that the video only contained a short part of the 
speech, that place where everything went horribly wrong etc.

 
> Barring this, I am not certain that *@longdesc* is appropriate for either 
> since replacement/substitution is not *description*.  I fear we vear from 
> the value of @longdesc if we use it in a manner which provides substitution. 
> an @longdesc of a video would be something achin to textual audio 
> description. 


I complained that Henri took <video> to mean commercial video. But 
I think here you mix the name "longdesc" with "long description". 
"longdesc" is a bad name for something which is meant to represent 
  "a long or complex alt".

> A transcript or a manuscript is the full text or in the case 
> of a transcript, perhaps an annotated full text of what is said in the 
> <video> which provide proper substitution.  In any case, even what is in the 
> @longdesc in this case is replacement and description probably needs to 
> confine its self to describing the activity and the surroundings etcettera 
> without including the content.  We'd get the names of the characters, the 
> colors and sizes, what they are dressed like, where the event is being held 
> etc.

This is not in line with what @longdesc is in HTML 4. In fact, if 
anything, it would have been the @alt which contained what you say 
the @longdesc resource should contain. Consider the  example code 
in the HTML 4 specification:

<BODY>
<P>
<IMG src="sitemap.gif"
      alt="HP Labs Site Map"
      longdesc="sitemap.html">
</BODY>
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2008 17:32:43 UTC