- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:44:33 +1100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > 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.) Or just "..not sufficient support for synchronised accessibility content" ? Silvia.
Received on Monday, 15 March 2010 04:45:30 UTC