Surely you know that 'p' in relation to video is an abbreviation for pixels. And 1080p video isn't the equivalent of specifying "font-size: 1080px" in your transcript's CSS.
I don't think it stands for "pixels". It stands for "progressive", as in "progressive scan". As opposed to "interlaced scan", which is what 1080i refers to.
Why do you think I said it was equal to specifying the font-size? As I said, it practically refers to the number of lines. Font-size has nothing to do with that, directly. You can't specify the number of lines in CSS, AFAIK. CSS is for styling. Lines are content.
Anyway, I was just trying to point out how nonsensical it is to compare the "resolution" of a text with a resolution of a video. And if you do, I think it's interesting to think about that the number actually is dynamic, as is, it depends on the container and so on. Which is actually quite an appropriate analogy, since it is often easier (IMHO) to think profoundly about something you're reading (where you control the tempo), in comparison to a video, where you constantly have to follow their tempo. Yes, you can rewind, but if you do that, I think you'd agree with me that it'd be easier with a transcript.
My 0p comment is silly math (take 240p, remove 240p worth of video, the remainder is 0p) to make a point that 240p is actually good enough to watch since what the author presented cannot be watched at all.
Yes there are many benefits to having a transcript, but those arguments apply just as much to 1080p as to 240p.
