W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

Re: CP, ISSUE-30: Link longdesc to role of img [Was: hypothetical question on longdesc]

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:02:22 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2=1auKozmUf8JTbh-aY55hwKfoxji6AqrBi63VDO0+ueQ@mail.gmail.com>
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?

Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 01:03:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:50 UTC