- From: Remco <remco47@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:52:38 +0200
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Philip J?genstedt<philipj at opera.com> wrote: > Before suggesting any changes to the <source> element, make sure you have > read > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#concept-media-load-algorithm > > Put simply, the handling of <source> is already quite complex, overloading > it with completely different meanings is not a good idea. <video> won't > handle "text/html" as a source, but if you want different media files for > different audiences I suggest experimenting with <source media>. <source media> doesn't do anything useful for my case. It can't load textual data. Also, if the resources are unavailable, there will be nothing to see, since all resources are off-page. It also doesn't work for iframe, object, embed or img. Is it really the idea that the only way you're going to have alternative textual content, is to Build It Yourself? You have to abuse <details> or a hidden <div> with some Javascript to build a construction that has alternative content in case the video/audio/iframe/object/embed is not available or desirable. If you want it to be semantically accessible, you even have to build another layer on top of that, in the form of ARIA attributes. Nobody will do that. Even the <source> solution is harder, maybe too hard, to use than the alt="" solution. It requires authors to create additional elements or pages to house the alternative content. Since accessibility is often an afterthought, about the most an author will be willing to do, is filling in an alt attribute. Remco
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 03:52:38 UTC