- From: <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:59:05 -0400
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, "'Silvia Pfeiffer'" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, ""'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>
David Singer writes: > Or we simply say the obvious "If the image is not a representative frame of the video, or conveys information in addition to the content of the video, then a description of that information must also be included with the description(s) of the video that are supplied for accessibility (e.g. alt, longdesc, transcript, etc.)." > A description of the video is not the same thing as a description of a rich image that is published to stand for the video. It's not a video until the video is running. Until then it's an icon for the video, or a poster for the video, or the magic doo-hickie that tells you something about the video (or not). Two different things, semantically disparate. Therefore, they obviously need semantically distinct description. This should be obvious, but it seems it isn't. So, consider that concattinating these two functions, whether in one's own mind or in the markup that provides access, is unacceptable. Janina > > David Singer > Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. -- Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net Chair, Open Accessibility janina@a11y.org Linux Foundation http://a11y.org Chair, Protocols & Formats Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/wai/pf World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 20:59:38 UTC