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

Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
"Different people would likely describe different things. Just like different people will likely give you different information in an <img> @alt tag. I can tell you what I would say: namely something about what the image infers about the video. But I'm sure others will say different things. I'm not sure, therefore, that a discussion about exact wording in the attribute is actually helpful. Whatever the person would say would in any case imply that it is related to the video."

	It's difficult to define the purpose of an attribute without illustrating how it might be used. In any case, I don't think it's the relationship that's under dispute here. I think we all agree that the image is a place holder for the video.

	That said, it doesn't mean that the image and the video will be described in the same way, or with the same information. In this context there is a relationship between the image and the video, in other contexts there may be no relationship between them at all.

	If we put an image of the cinema poster elsewhere on the page, we would give it a text description. Why then wouldn't we do the same, just because the poster happened to be a temporary placeholder for the video?

Léonie.


 
 
 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com] 
Sent: 28 March 2012 01:47
To: Léonie Watson
Cc: John Foliot; Charles Pritchard; David Singer; Sean Hayes; "'xn--mlform-iua@målform.no'"; rubys@intertwingly.net; laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com; mjs@apple.com; Paul Cotton; public-html-a11y@w3.org; public-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: Text description for @poster (was RE: CP, ISSUE-30: Link longdesc to role of img [Was: hypothetical question on longdesc])

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Léonie Watson <lwatson@nomensa.com> wrote:
> Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> "Actually, that's not the case. A sighted user will not be able to distinguish the two either. For the sighted user the "misleading"
> image is the video. There is no other image presented. It is just that picture with the video controls rendered on top."
>
>        So if I were to ask a sighted person to describe what they were looking at, they might say something like: "A place holding image above some video controls". If I were to ask them to describe the image, do you think they would explain what the video was about, or tell me what the image looked like?

Different people would likely describe different things. Just like different people will likely give you different information in an <img> @alt tag. I can tell you what I would say: namely something about what the image infers about the video. But I'm sure others will say different things. I'm not sure, therefore, that a discussion about exact wording in the attribute is actually helpful. Whatever the person would say would in any case imply that it is related to the video.

Regards,
Silvia.

Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 06:58:51 UTC