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: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:13:29 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
CC: 'Silvia Pfeiffer' <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "janina@rednote.net" <janina@rednote.net>, "'xn--mlform-iua@målform.no'" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, "rubys@intertwingly.net" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "mjs@apple.com" <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E9A92BD0A4FC934EB7935470A46D15240906C9ED@DB3EX14MBXC325.europe.corp.microsoft.com>
>> 1) The <video> element, when containing both a media asset and an
>> image, now has 2 objects that require a longer textual description.

>OK, there is the problem, it doesn't.  It has one object, the video;  you are entrenched in a confused position caused >by the unfortunate choice of the word 'poster'.  Everything else you say is founded on this misapprehension.

Well let us look at what the spec actually says. I think we have to admit that regardless of its name there is definitely the possibility of an image:

<quote>The poster attribute gives the address of an image file that the user agent can show while no video data is available. The attribute, if present, must contain a valid non-empty URL potentially surrounded by spaces. </quote>

I see nothing in that (normative) text that constrains that image to be a frame of the video.

We do have the following (informative) note

<quote>The image given by the poster attribute, the poster frame, is intended to be a representative frame of the video (typically one of the first non-blank frames) that gives the user an idea of what the video is like. </quote>

So either we change that note to be normative text, replacing "intended to be" with "must be" in which case I would concede Dave's point (although in such a case we should also require that the video description needs to convey a detailed description of the frame in question); or we concede John's point that there currently exists the possibility that the image is not deployed as *intended*, but rather as *allowed*, and is carrying other interesting information which is not in the video that a person who can't see is entitled to be able to perceive.
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 19:14:17 UTC

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