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: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:08:13 -0400
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, 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: <20120326140813.GB5169@sonata.rednote.net>
Silvia Pfeiffer writes:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 1:47 AM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
> > ... 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.
> > http://www.collativelearning.com/PICS%20FOR%20WEBSITE/ACO%20expanded/posters
> > /clockwork.jpg
> It frankly doesn't matter what picture the publisher chooses - it is a
> place holder for the video with video controls on top of it and
> therefore looks like a video and behaves like a video and provides
> information about the video. If the publisher chooses  a misleading
> image, then the text would need to be misleading, too. It does not
> change my argument.

It's not up to us to determine whether any particular content is
appropriate--misleading, whatever. Our job is facilitating alternative access.

> Have you heard of duck typing? It states that "When I see a bird that
> walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call
> that bird a duck." Similarly here, when I see an image with video
> controls that behaves exactly like a video, it *is* a video for all
> intents and purposes.

I now understand the intent among some here to incorporate even an
extraneous image provided by the video element as "part of the video."
Never mind the taxonomy, then. How, Silvia, are those of us who rely on
alternative access to understand that that extraneous image, with its
"misleading" content, is what it is. If you make it part of the video
description, you entangle the video with its UI advertising. The sighted
user will have no trouble distinguishing the two, but it seems
alternative content users will have that trouble. That's not supposed to
happen with alternative text presentation. We're to keep the semantics

Until the user chooses to "play" the video, it's just on screen
advertising. The two should not be confounded, whatever you choose to
call the componant parts.



Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200

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 Monday, 26 March 2012 14:09:24 UTC

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