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: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:41:48 -0700
To: "'Silvia Pfeiffer'" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>, "'Sean Hayes'" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, '"'xn--mlform-iua@målform.no'"' <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, <rubys@intertwingly.net>, <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, <mjs@apple.com>, "'Paul Cotton'" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <027401cd07bc$318ca780$94a5f680$@ca>
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> When you see an image at the start of the video, you do not know if
> it's the first frame of the video, the n-th frame of the video, or a
> jpg being pulled in as a placeholder for a frame of the video. It can
> be any of these three. Therefore, since we agree that what matters is
> the UI and how it functions in the UI, there is no distinction between
> a paused frame and the poster. Therefore, from a logical and UI point
> of view, the jpg is indeed part of the video and its genesis does not
> matter.

...which is why I had originally proposed <firstframe>, as it was also
agnostic to the genesis of the visual display. 

What you are failing to understand is what is being asked for in terms of
"descriptions" - the non-sighted users I have talked to want both a
description of "the film" AS WELL AS a description of what that initial
first image on screen actually LOOKS LIKE. They are degrees apart in how
they would be described, and what they mean to the non-sighted user.

This discussion remains circular, with no clear understanding of what is
actually being asked for. 

I, and I don't think anyone else, really cares where the image comes from
(although allowing @poster to reference a uniquely different first image
does shake things up significantly) - what is really required is 2 types of
longer textual description. It is entirely reasonable that not both will be
required all of the time, but that there will also be times when both will
absolutely be required, and currently we can't do either - we should be
planning for both scenarios, and stop insisting that only one scenario is
ever going to emerge.

Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 23:42:28 UTC

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