- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:41:47 +1000
- To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Cc: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>, Christian Vogler <christian.vogler@gallaudet.edu>, public-texttracks@w3.org
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Loretta Guarino Reid > <lorettaguarino@google.com> wrote: >> >> I think the clearest conclusion is that the user needs to be able to >> choose the styling. Not everyone finds the same style readable. > > > UAs can allow users to select a different style, of course. It's the > specified defaults I'm concerned about. >From the many conversations I've had with deaf people, a black background makes it definitely easier to read. It's obvious why: the eye gets to focus on the text alone and is not distracted by all the different colors and objects that the text is overlayed on top of. >From an aesthetic point of view, however, the black background is not pretty. It also potentially obscures a lot of things. So, a somewhat transparent background, but with an outline on the letters has been chosen by more modern video players. I just checked and YouTube running Flash seems to default to white text with a black text shadow now, while YouTube running HTML5 defaults to white text on a black background. Fortunately, YouTube has a simple keyboard shortcut to turn the background on/off, which alleviates the difference. What that means for browser defaults - I don't know. I tend to think that a semi-transparent background as we have it is a good enough compromise. Combine that with the possibility to have users change the settings and I think we're good enough. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Saturday, 11 August 2012 04:42:35 UTC