- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:48:58 -0700
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Mar 14, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 5:01 AM, Joe D Williams > <joedwil@earthlink.net> wrote: >>> retitling: "<audio> and <video> do not have sufficient support for >>> synchronized alternative content for accessibility" >> >> Better and maybe fine, except for the "alternative content" >> categorization. >> I would still say the alternative content is fallback. Fallback to >> alternative content is more like a failure mode for <video> and >> <audio>. > > Well, the word "alternative content" has a tradition in WAI for > accessibility, see > http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS/#gl-provide-equivalents. How about "<audio> and <video> do not have sufficient support for synchronized alternative or additional content for accessibility". (Since something like a caption track or audio description track plays in addition to the main resource rather than being a replacement.) Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 15 March 2010 01:49:35 UTC