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

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Leif Halvard Silli
<xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
> Silvia Pfeiffer, Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:26:14 +1100:
>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>
>>> If there - for the video element - is such a congruency between the
>>> aria-label and the video poster, then doesn't that imply that the
>>> @aria-label should describe, not the video, but the poster image?
>>
>> It's a transitive relationship: the @aria-label describes the poster
>> which describes the video, therefore @aria-label describes the video.
>
> You make it seem obvious that @aria-label describes the video poster.
> And not the video.

Since the poster describes the video, it's one-and-the-same.

If the author picks a poster that does not represent the video, then
they are very careless and won't care enough about describing the
poster either. In fact, in this case we should be lucky to get a
@aria-label at all. If we get it, that attribute will most likely
completely ignore the poster anyway.

> It is obvious also because no one can 'see' the
> video, until it has started rolling. But that does perhaps not make it
> less important with a long description link?

Oh, I have not spoken about long descriptions of the video (which
includes the poster). I still have an open bug for a @transcript
attribute or some such. All I am talking about is the @alt relative
for the video element. I don't even remember how we side-tracked onto
this topic on this thread.


>> Also, I don't think we need to discuss this any more. It's already
>> escalated to formal objection from issue 142.
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/142
>
> At least it should be described somewhere, how to use @aria-label with
> video.

That is true. But that's for ARIA to do and not HTML5, right?

Cheers,
Silvia.

Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 05:22:28 UTC