- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 12:00:07 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 07/02/2017 11:50, David MacDonald wrote: > Here's my take. > > 1.4.3 applies to "images of text" which have been "rendered in a > non-text form *in order to achieve a particular effect* ..." > So the glossary is assigning an intention to the creation of the text. > The author put it in an image because she wanted it in a special font, > or a special position in relation to a background which might have been > hard to do with CSS etc... This is not the case for a movie. Authors > rarely make movies with the intention of achieving a particular text effect. > I'd argue that the glossary definition actually confuses matters here, as it seems to exhonerate images of text where no particular effect was intended (but where the author simply thought using an image of text would be best for whatever they're trying to do, technically). i.e. if an author was using just some regular font, not applying any special effects or anything...1.4.3 would still apply to that image of text. The glossary definition should really remove that intention, or at least give it as an example of intent, rather than implying it's the only possible intent. https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-contrast.html#images-of-textdef "text that has been rendered in a non-text form (e.g., an image); often, this is done in order to achieve a particular visual effect" > I haven't been watching movies looking for colour contrast failures of > significant text. I was wondering if any others (Glenda, Jon, John, > Gregg, etc.) would agree. FWIW I have flagged issues of color contrast for important on-screen text in videos in previous audits. P -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2017 12:00:35 UTC