[5e92cb50239222b]

I think the question is obvious — is this going to pass on a technicality or does the law stipulate that text is required to exactly follow the speech in audio? I'm asking because in my country that's how you usually pass various government audits — by following the letter of the law and ignoring its spirit. I've had to do it a few times at $DAYJOB because of budget constraints and other reasons.

[rsstack]

The Israeli law uses WCAG's definition. I'm not kidding, the law refers to an "Israeli standard" which is just a PDF that links to WCAG and includes an errata of changes; e.g. captions are Level AA instead of Level A in the Israeli standard.

https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/quickref/?versions=2.0#qr-medi...

Failure F8 seems relevant to the loophole: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/failures/F8.html

[incone123]

Don't know how Israel's courts work but in England and Wales judges will seek to implement the will of Parliament. That's done by, among other things, interpreting words as they are ordinarily used. Do you know anyone who would expect 'subtitles' to mean text unrelated to the video?

[jen20]

> Do you know anyone who would expect 'subtitles' to mean text unrelated to the video?

By this measure, I'd expect SUBtitles to be under the damn video, not overlaid on it.

[incone123]

You're not making a good faith argument.

[rat87]

No of course not the law is not stupid

If there are some mistakes (due to sloppy or autogenerated speech to text) it might work but not if it's totally wrong