Re: Captions obscuring text content of video - SC 1.2.2 fail?

Under 5.1 Interpreting Normative Requirements it states:
"The main content of WCAG 2.1 is normative and defines requirements that
impact conformance claims. Introductory material, appendices, sections
marked as "non-normative", diagrams, examples, and notes are informative
(non-normative). Non-normative material provides advisory information to
help interpret the guidelines but does not create requirements that impact
a conformance claim".
So this explicitly states that notes are informational only.
That should be the answer to the issue raised I believe.
For instance, each of the four non-interference SCs have a note
highlighting this nature. But it is the normative 5.2.5 that identifies
these SCs explicitly that is key and not the note following each SC.
Yet, the note that clarifies "essential" for SC 1.4.5, "Logotypes (text
that is part of a logo or brand name) are considered essential" is widely
pointed to by many for exempting logos with text. It is really
non-normative guidance on interpreting the term "essential".
Thanks,
Sailesh Panchang

Email: sailesh.panchang@deque.com
Deque Systems Inc | - Accessibility for Good | www.deque.com














On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 8:39 AM Pyatt, Elizabeth J <ejp10@psu.edu> wrote:

> This is an interesting scenario. If the user can pause the video and
> toggle captions off, then there is a mechanism to view content that might
> be hidden below a caption (I've done this a few times).
>
> But if the video is being presented as a live stream (no pausing) or in a
> setting where they don't have individual control, that could be another
> issue.
>
> My two cents
>
> Elizabeth
>
> On Sep 9, 2025, at 8:13 AM, Mark Magennis <Mark.Magennis@skillsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> A video includes text content that is positioned in the space used by
> closed captions, so the captions appear overlaid on the text. I'm wondering
> whether this is an SC 1.2.2 failure and it seems to rest on which part of
> the SC is normative.
>
> WCAG SC 1.2.2 says "Captions
> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/captions-prerecorded.html#dfn-captions> are
> provided for all prerecorded audio content in synchronized media...". But
> in the SC text, the word "Captions" is a hyperlink to a definition of that
> term which includes a note "Note 4. Captions should not obscure or obstruct
> relevant information in the video". I assume that the definition of
> "Captions" is normative. But is the note within the definition also
> normative? Would it be true to say that if captions do obscure relevant
> information in the video then they don't meet the definition of captions
> and therefore can't be used to satisfy SC 1.2.2? And does the word "should"
> within the note make any difference to this interpretation?
>
> Mark
>
> *Mark Magennis*
> Principal Product Manager, Accessibility
>
> <image.png> <http://www.skillsoft.com/>
>
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Elizabeth J. Pyatt, Ph.D.
> Accessibility IT Consultant
> IT Accessibility
> Penn State University
> ejp10@psu.edu, (814) 865-0805 or
> accessibility@psu.edu (main office)
>
>
>
>