Open BridgesHelpdesk opened 2 years ago
Do not agree with this. Firstly, the text alternative is considered at SC 1.1.1 and secondly, I do not think that all text contents must always necessarily be described.
Example: An article about car traffic shows a street with many cars. It would be absurd to use all the license plates of the cars and the advertising on the billboards as text alternatives
@JAWS-test
I see your point. A separate recommendation was to add a definition for "intentional text," see below. Perhaps the term "intentional text" could be added to relieve the need to describe incidental text in the environment UNLESS that incidental text is important to the content.
INTENTIONAL TEXT
Definition of image of text is relevant for SC 1.4.5, but also for videos (e.g. SC 1.2.2), but there only as an explanation of open caption. In this respect, I do not consider the proposed changes relevant.
The current definition of “image of text” is quite limiting; it allows “other visual content” to suffice for text accessibility.
Image of Text (current)
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. Instead, this definition needs to ensure that the image of text will include a full text alternative, regardless of whether additional visual content is provided:
Image of Text (recommended amendment)
(Additions in ALL CAPS) 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. NOTE: A TEXT ALTERNATIVE MUST BE PROVIDED FOR ALL CONTENT COMPRISING THE IMAGE OF TEXT, REGARDLESS OF THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF NON-TEXT VISUAL CONTENT.