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

How about
"<audio> and <video> do not have sufficient support for synchronized 
accessibility content."
Thanks,
Joe


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: "Joe D Williams" <joedwil@earthlink.net>; <public-html@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Bug 5758] insufficient accessibility fallback for 
<audio> or <video>


>
> 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 05:16:29 UTC