✅ Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	8a1a87f
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/wcag2/deploys/685eea58911a1e0008cdf6a5
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-4040--wcag2.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

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.

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)

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.

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)

Discussed on backlog call 9/6.

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)?

Discussed on backlog call 1/17. Moved to Ready to review for edit after 9/13/2024.

I have removed the Normative label from this PR.
This is non-normative content in the spec, as per https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#interpreting-normative-requirements (my bold emphasis)

The main content of WCAG 2.2 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.

As such, it should be tagged as a substantive, non-normative erratum.

This is supported by our process document, which states:

Note that changes to examples or notes within the technical standard are tagged with Erratum Raised, but do not constitute normative changes, so do not also get the Normative tag (instead, Editorial). Examples and notes in definitions, for example, are not normative, but do need to go through a specific adoption and merge process, and also need to be added as errata (see Errata changes, below).

@GreggVan stated on today's Working Group call that he believes the last sentence of the example in this definition is not an example.

The example has existed in its current form since 2.1 was published in 2018. This change does not alter the designation of this paragraph; it is marked up and visually flagged as an example (see image below), and as such is clearly non-normative (as I documented in my prior comment).

I can see a case being made that the final sentence is a note, rather than an example. A note is also informative, so I don't really see a big deal leaving it as it is. However, if we want to redesignate that, a new issue should be opened for that so it can be tackled separately. But in regard to this PR, such a suggested change is scope creep; and also orthogonal.

Discussed on backlog call 2/7. While examples are not normative, that is not relevant in this case. The use of “for example” is not the same as having a list of examples.

Regardless, the proposed change is appropriate. No change in status.