David Singer wrote: > > 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. > David, I am not confused. There are 2 visual assets - one is a "moving" picture and the other is a static picture. While they are certainly related (as salt is to pepper) they are also - or can be - different, especially if the image contains embedded text, which needs to be surfaced to the non-sighted user. Continuing to argue that salt is pepper will not change the fact that one is not the other. Sean Hayes wrote: > > 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. This is exactly what I am arguing. Since the author can specify *ANY* image, there exists the possibility that the image will require its own means of being expressed in a textual way. At any rate, as I previously noted, this went nowhere at the HTML-WG, and so I approached the ARIA-WG, who understood the need and user-requirement without too much difficulty. So, like the aria-describedat Unofficial Draft that Rich Schwerdtfeger announced today (http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/aria-unofficial/raw-file/tip/describedat.html) there is also a proposal (even less fleshed out) to create an aria-mechanism to address this need. It will probably bear a striking resemblance to aria-describedat except that it will be a mechanism that can describe, not a visual element, but rather a visual property of an element (that "attribute of an attribute" problem). I think that not only would it solve the @poster issue, but could be further extended to cover other complex images rendered (for example) as CSS backgrounds. Stand by for more details. JFReceived on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 21:25:26 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:50 UTC