W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

Re: [Bug 5758] insufficient accessibility fallback for <audio> or <video>

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:44:33 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02831003142144n744af7c4n3796d0cc34eab4bf@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:59 UTC