- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:02:22 +1100
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, janina@rednote.net, xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no, rubys@intertwingly.net, laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com, mjs@apple.com, paul.cotton@microsoft.com, public-html-a11y@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:38 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > > On Mar 20, 2012, at 17:30 , John Foliot wrote: > >> Except for when your b) assertion is NOT a frame from the video, but a different, author chosen and supplied image, referenced via @poster. Yes, a longer text description is required for the media (as well), but users are asking for both, and we should be able to provide both. This is not an aria-label, this is a rich textual description of both visual assets. >> > > If there is extra information in that frame over what's in the video, there should be a description of that extra information in the description of the video. No debate about that. > > > Alas, we haven't managed to design the obvious need of a description of the video itself; or settle on a scheme to link to transcripts; or have a general scheme for timed alternatives Is the <track> approach not sufficient for timed alternatives? What need are you referring to? > -- despite talking about them, as I said, years ago in the Stanford workshop. We even managed to forget some of the needs identified there (e.g. susceptibility to stimulus - flashing/banging etc.). sad. very sad. I think that would require a new attribute and likely it should be an aria-* attribute. So, might be a good candidate for ARIA2? Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 01:03:13 UTC