- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:11:53 +1000
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > Silvia Pfeiffer, Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:10:17 +1000: >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >>> Silvia Pfeiffer, Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:56:09 +1000: >>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:20 AM, Laura Carlson wrote: > >>>> I wonder: When you turn off images in a browser, does that also turn >>>> off video and audio? (In Chrome I don't even see a preference setting >>>> for images any more.) >>> >>> Yeah, how should a text browser render <video>? If we look at <object >>> data=image.jpg>fallback</object>, then it presents the fallback. >>> Whereas for <img alt="fallback"> it renders the alt text in a different >>> color. >>> >>> 3 options: 1) Behave like for <object>. 2) Behave like for object but >>> still color the text or something. 3) Treat <video> more or less as an >>> image map: Introduce a @alt attribute on <video> which is meant to >>> represent the video including the first frame. By pressing the video >>> element, the user can download the content of the src attribute. If the >>> video contains multiple video formats and/or fallback, then let the >>> user "open" the video element and navigate inside it to select video >>> format to download and read the fallback. >> >> Careful about the use of the term "fallback" here. We already have >> "fallback" for non-HTML5 browsers, which is the stuff inside the video >> element. I really don't want to use the term "fallback" for text-only >> HTML5 browsers. I'd prefer if we can focus on calling it "text >> alternative" or something along those lines. > > I said "fallback" because @alt represent a special kind of fallback. I > see that you want to think of the fallback of <video> as yet another > special kind of fallback. But OK, will try to stick to what you said. > >> Also, we need to be careful what types of text alternatives we >> introduce. I was here not talking about short text alternatives such >> as can be done with @alt or @aria-describedby. I was particularly >> talking about full transcriptions, which typically would be provided >> in a separate html page or sometimes further down. So, it would >> definitely have to have a URI reference as value, e.g. "#desc" or >> "desc.html". That URI would be shown only when the video is not >> displayed (in a HTML5 browser!) and it would also be exposed to AT >> somehow - maybe a special sound could be made to make people aware >> that such a URL is available. It could also be exposed in a context >> menu such that anyone can have access. But it is not something that >> would go on a <source> or some attribute inside the video - it would >> go straight onto the <video> element. The DOM inside a video should >> never be exposed to AT since it represents a single entity. > > For @longdesc there are already things to build on: it is introduced in > a standard way in screenreaders, which announced "Link to long > description" - or smilar. And GUI browsers can use a cursor to show > that there is a longdesc link. In my understanding, that link for video would only be exposed in-band if the video is not exposed. For screenreaders, what you describe does indeed work. > However, it must be said that @longdesc is not alternative text - it is > supplemental text. Thus @longdesc works in tandem with a short > alternative text. The link text of the longdesc link is the image - if > you are sighted etc. If you are not using image, then the @alt text is > the link text, so to speak. For video, I regard the alt text (or whatever it turns out to be) as "pre-action" information. I would listen to the alt-text (just like I look at the video image) to find out if I want to watch the video. So, for video it's not actually an alternative to the video. The transcription is rather an alternative to the video. > For <video> then for ARIA supporting AT, it should be OK to pick the > short alt text/short label from another element, via aria-labelledby. > But for a text browser, this is not what we expect - it would be a > layer violation for it to pick text alternative from another element. > > Thus, if we focus on HTML5 supporting text browsers, which thus > shouldn't present the fallback for old browser, what should they then > presentd? If <video> has @alt, then it could serve as video > identification and as "link text" for the longdesc URL. > > Btw, one advantage that <video> has over <img>, is that it *is* > interactive content. This means that it is illegal to wrap a link > around a <video>. Hence @longdesc and link wrapper will not potentially > compete about the attention. > > Anyway, in a summary, I don't think that ARIA takes away the need for > @alt on <video> per what you described above: Without @alt. Unless we > want text browsers to represent a video element with a certain dingbat > symbol? Anyway, I'm not trying to do any arguments on short text alternatives. I don't want to talk about @alt in this thread. Maybe the word "text alternative" does not describe accurately what @longdesc means. In fact, a transcription is always somewhat of supplemental text. But for those not wanting to watch the video or not able to, the text in @longdesc may well be an alternative to the video. This is why I subsumed it under "text alternatives". Basically, I was reacting to "thinking outside the box". Maybe @longdesc works for video. I'd be happy if it does. I thought I'd just describe how I can see a transcription work with a video. What it's called in the end is secondary, but should not introduce conflicts with other elements. Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 03:12:42 UTC