Re: aria-describedat?

Jason,

WCAG 2.0's Success Criterion 1.2.8 requires an alternative for time-based
media<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#alt-time-based-mediadef>(that
is, the collated text transcript) at level AAA.

Loretta

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Jason White <[email protected]> wrote:

> Silvia Pfeiffer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So, moving to a new attribute name, recommending consistent ways of
> > how to expose the link visually, and applying that attribute to more
> > than just the <img> element might help with getting off-page
> > descriptions for complex HTML elements.
>
> I agree.
>
> Concerning <video>, the use case would presumably be what WCAG 1.0 refers
> to
> as a "collated text transcript" of the video. This was dropped as a
> requirement in WCAG 2.0 even at the highest (AAA) level of conformance. As
> a
> result, users who are deaf-blind and for whom captions and auditory
> descriptions are inadequate, are deprived of access even at the strongest
> conformance level.
>
> I remember arguing that the requirement should be retained for exactly this
> reason (at level AAA of WCAG conformance). Unfortunately, it's a debate
> which
> I and others lost outright when the working group made its decision.
>
> Of course, it would be possible to allow the "fall-back" content of
> <video> to
> carry a description, without adding @longdesc or @aria-described-at; the
> HTML
> 5 draft, when last I looked, explicitly discouraged this practice in both
> <audio> and <video>.
>
> While I would welcome HTML support for collated transcripts of video, I
> think
> their removal from WCAG will weaken the case - perhaps arguments from
> consistency and universality of whatever design is chosen, will ultimately
> prove decisive, but that could be misplaced hope on my part.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev-accessibility mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-accessibility
>