Update 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 to include references to text in video#4927
Update 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 to include references to text in video#4927patrickhlauke wants to merge 6 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
patrickhlauke
changed the title
bruce-usab
left a comment
bruce-usab
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice edit, and we have the good examples of incidental text. At some point, we might want to add an example of relevant text in video (for example PPT style slides).
|
Discussed on TF call 27 Feb and moved to Ready for Approval. |
|
|
||
| <p>This success criterion applies to text in the page, including | ||
| placeholder text and text that is shown when a pointer is hovering over an object | ||
| placeholder text, text in videos, and text that is shown when a pointer is hovering over an object |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👎 I don't think this has enough detail to make this understanding doc clear about the scope. The SC applies specifically to "The visual presentation of text and images of text"; text in videos can qualify as image of text, but often doesn't. The "image of text" definition is:
image of text: text that has been rendered in a non-text form (e.g., an image) in order to achieve a particular visual effect
Note: This does not include text that is part of a picture that contains significant other visual content.
Example: A person's name on a nametag in a photograph.
I think this definition suggests that if you had a video that was "I animated the word 'Sale!' bouncing from side to side", that would be in scope, but if you had a video where a low-contrast street sign happened to be part of a movie scene, that would not be in scope.
I think most text in videos in practice would not be in scope, so I think we should be more clear than this update suggests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It occurs to me that “A person‘s name on nametag is a photograph” could be read as being an example of images of text — when the opposite is intended!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And to @dbjorge good point on call wrt captioning -- those often are actual text (not images of text). With digital TVs and modern closed captioning, sufficient contrast is guaranteed because modern TVs let one pick foreground and background colors (and other settings, including font). The source media lacking CC data is addressed by other SC.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think most text in videos in practice would not be in scope.
There are certainly plenty of videos like that, but most or all of the text would be in scope in many of the videos we encounter. This includes opening credits, title frames between scenes, and multiple end cards that can contain a large amount of information. Important text is often displayed throughout educational videos and animations. And some clients still create videos with open captions.
6 participants
Filing as a draft PR for now... based on an branch that was set up at the time but without a matching PR due to ongoing discussion in the original issue.
This, once refined, closes #1939