Amend definition of motion animation to *not* exclude blurring #4040
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
bruce-usab
added
2.3.3 Animation from Interactions
WCAG 2.1
ErratumRaised
|
Discussed on TF call. IMHO this is a nice minimal edit for the issue raised. |
|
This is a bit odd in that the blurring from the PR title is nowhere mentioned in the amended text (opacity and color change is). As to blurring, one could also argue that transitions from sharp to strong blur to sharp and back to sharp etc. could be quite distracting if not just an initial effect, the more so the large the image is. Admittedly haven't seen that out there yet. |
before, the list of excluded effects included blurring. this PR removes the mention of blurring, so does what the PR title says? |
|
@patrickhlauke argh... not sure how I could misread this. |
|
My two cents - blurred images give me a headache and I am not able to look at them. This is a big issue with blurred remote meeting backgrounds but also some styles of photography. |
@mraccess77 while that is a wider, more general topic, this proposed change here should be welcome for you then because it does now mean that where blurring is used on interaction, it can now fail Animation from Interactions (while before it seemed to imply that blurring was exempt, just like changes in colour and opacity) |
one word change to strengthen phrase
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Adding in my original proposed text that clarifies the it's not about screen motion in a vacuum, but about the perspective of the primary user. IMO, clarifying this is critical in the context of emerging modalities like XR, in which motion may be perceivable from another observable camera angle, but not the primary.
|
Discussed on backlog call 9/6. |
Co-authored-by: James Craig <[email protected]>
|
Discussed on backlog call 10/4. Added "to the viewer" at end of sentence to address concern raised by @cookiecrook. |
|
@alastc @bruce-usab wondering whatever happened to this PR? i seem to remember we agree on it, but I see it's still open and was under "No status" column. did this accidentally fall between the cracks? Moving it back to "Drafted" |
|
...or is this going to just show up in Errata (once those are published)? |
Closes #3949
Preview | Diff