W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

RE: Text description for @poster (was RE: CP, ISSUE-30: Link longdesc to role of img [Was: hypothetical question on longdesc])

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 07:47:32 -0700
To: "'Silvia Pfeiffer'" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Charles Pritchard'" <chuck@jumis.com>, 'Léonie Watson' <lwatson@nomensa.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: <007b01cd09cd$1107ec50$3317c4f0$@ca>
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> Even that image is a placeholder image for the video and therefore a
> short description of what the viewer will later see in the full video.

This is patently false. It could be *any* image, displaying *any* visual
design the art people choose. It could contain text never spoken or
displayed in the movie, it could contain other content also never rendered
in the film. We simply cannot say or know at this time how authors will use
their ability to insert a placeholder image in the video bounding box, prior
to the start of the video. We have given the authors that ability, at which
point we have lost control over what will be chosen.

> I
> don't want to have the screenreader read out something like "image of
> blah blah blah", then immediately followed by "video of blah blah
> blah". What is it now? Is it an image or a video? Can I interact with
> it or not? That's confusing.

Respectfully, what you as a sighted person wants, versus what numerous
non-sighted people have expressed wanting, don't match up.  As what *I* want
is to respect and deliver what non-sighted users are asking for here, I
really don't think what *you* want has the same relevance.  

I have already suggested that for a short-text description, there is an
extreme likelihood that the short-text (Accessible Name) would most probably
be the same thing. It is the longer textual descriptions that I am more
concerned about, and the feedback I have received also confirms that. So
let's for the moment agree that the short text for either visual asset will
be the same. Let's focus on the longer textual descriptions.

> @alt does not exist for video. So it seems @aria-label is perfectly
> adequate.	

*IF* we're prepared to accept that, then for short-text (AccName), sure. I
don't think we've really had that discussion (with regard to i18n), and so I
want to be sure that it is acceptable. We *could* also make @alt applicable
to <video>, we simply haven't to date.

> This is only a problem for mixed-language pages / text alternatives.
> It is rare to happen.

Evidence? Entire Foreign film festivals moved onto on-line delivery may
disprove that assertion quickly...

> Since we've lived with it for <img>, we might as well accept it for
> <video>, so as not to over-complicate things.

Is not one of our goals to improve things?  Again, I'm not too fussed
personally, but we *should* make sure there is some form of consensus.

> For the rare case where the author needs proper marked-up text for
> i18n, we should recommend the use of @aria-labelledby or
> @aria-describedAt.

Aria-describedat is not yet really a *thing*, so we really cannot recommend
using it, any more than we can recommend using aria-longdesc or

In all of your response Silvia, you have still not suggested how to provide
longer textual descriptions for both visual assets, you have only asserted
that you don't want 2. I and others disagree with your assertion, and
further we still lack a means to even provide 1 long textual description,
never-mind 2.

This causes me a fair bit of frustration.  

I am also curious to hear feedback on the idea of conceptually treating the
@poster image as a background image of the video bounding box, rather than a
foreground image, as if that idea has any credence, then an aria-attribute
for *any* background image would solve the problem I and others are
expressing here.

Received on Saturday, 24 March 2012 14:48:36 UTC

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