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.
| <p>addition of steps between conditions to create the illusion of movement or to give a sense of a smooth transition</p> | ||
| <aside class="example"><p>For example, an element which moves into place or changes size while appearing is considered to be animated. An element which appears instantly without transitioning is not using animation. Motion animation does not include changes of color, blurring, or opacity which do not change the perceived size, shape, or position of the element.</p></aside> | ||
|
|
||
| <aside class="example"><p>For example, an element which moves into place or changes size while appearing is considered to be animated. An element which appears or changes instantly, without transition/animation steps, is not using animation.</p><p>Motion animation does not include changes – such as changes of color or opacity – that do not alter the perceived size, shape, position, or distance/depth of the element.</p></aside> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| <aside class="example"><p>For example, an element which moves into place or changes size while appearing is considered to be animated. An element which appears or changes instantly, without transition/animation steps, is not using animation.</p><p>Motion animation does not include changes – such as changes of color or opacity – that do not alter the perceived size, shape, position, or distance/depth of the element.</p></aside> | |
| <aside class="example"><p>For example, an element which moves into place or changes size while appearing is considered to be animated. An element which appears or changes instantly, without transition/animation steps, is not using animation.</p><p>Motion animation does not include changes – such as changes of color or opacity – that do not alter the perceived size, shape, position, or distance/depth of the element to the viewer.</p></aside> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i'll admit, that reads a bit stilted to me. isn't it already implicit in the fact that this talks about "perceived..." as it's clearly being perceived by a user/viewer?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agree, the use of perceived makes "to the viewer" redundant.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the context of cookiecrook's comment: "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."
I can see why it isn't as redundant as it appears from just the code change.
|
Discussed on backlog call 9/6. |
Closes #3949
Preview | Diff