- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 03:22:22 +0100
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- CC: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
Lachlan Hunt wrote: > Consider how difficult it is for a user to access the alternative > content nested within <object>. AFAIK, the only way to do so in most > graphical browsers is to view the source. So, if an audio file was > embedded using <object> (or <audio>) and the transcript was nested > within, that would make it difficult for users without assistive > technology to access it. But, unless I'm mistaken, no current UA even renders HTML5's <audio> and <video>, so comparing how they currently handle HTML4's <object> may not be all that relevant. And if the spec stated that UAs need to handle fallback content a certain way (possibly making reference to UAAG 1.0 in passing as well) that gives users control, would that be a likely step in the right direction? Or is the historically flaky implementation of <object> going to kill this idea off right from the get-go? P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ______________________________________________________________ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________
Received on Sunday, 29 July 2007 02:22:58 UTC