Re: Acessibility of <audio> and <video>

On 9/4/08, Ben Boyle <> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Henri Sivonen <> wrote:
>> I think transcripts should not be considered accessibility-only data.
>> Transcripts are useful to users who can hear just fine.
> This is very true. Transcripts actually serve particularly well as low
> bandwidth content to lead people in to multimedia elements.
> Example:

*Please* forgive me if I've missed the mark here..

Just a month or so ago *aggressively* advocated for text alternatives
at.. let's call it a momentarily highly visible website.. My public
rationale at that moment to better grab the attention of the targeted
inboxes was that the site was.. hm.. historically associated with low
income demo/graphics..

Low income = dialup affordability at best.. Right now, highend media
is NOT universally downloading on said dialup.. Is either being
blocked or else downloaded in 900/1500 *byte* dribbles.. If files do
fully download, they still often turn out corrupted after the fact..

Seems like just about everyone these days has jumped on the video and
podcast-type bandwagons to convey their message, no matter how
important and/or the intended audience.. When it comes to social
service information, it's creating a progressively growing
unavailability of Life-affecting information when things should be
going, should have already done been gone in the other direction..

In the above, a [text] alternative is 100% an accessibility asset, a
cannot access otherwise scenario when it comes to resource hungry
media files.. Just not what our Minds most often H1 and H2 target
issues train themselves to think of in terms of proactively,
preemptively accommodating *genuinely all* interested end users..

Warmest wishes from North Georgia, USA.. :)

Cindy Sue

- :: -
Celebrating Olmstead ♥ June 22, 1999
Georgia Voices That Count, 2005
Talking Rock, GA, USA

Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 20:35:37 UTC