12

Someone in chat just asked about an edit to a question where they added in a transcript for an image where the question asks about certain text within that image. Essentially, one of the reviewers rejected the suggested edit with the reason being that "the edit deviates from the original intent of the poster".

For me personally, rejecting an edit that adds additional accessibility to a question, especially with the "changes the intent" reason, even if it doesn't add anything else, seems wrong. But I may be wrong on that topic, which is why I wanted to get a meta ruling on the matter.

Do we consider an edit that makes a question or answer more accessible by adding a video or image transcript a meaningful edit?

| |
  • 5
    I rejected the edit - I thought the list with the OP's guesses to the games' titles had been changed, essentially changing the intent, but I only now noticed the edit actually added a transcript. Pardon my rash judgment. – Joachim Feb 11 at 12:46
  • 1
    @Joachim Upon my initial look at this edit that is exactly what I thought as well. It is such a large and thorough edit that my mind went straight to, "Why did they put the answers in the question?" Maybe I need more coffee... Anyway, I certainly can see why this edit could have been rejected, especially without deeper reading. – Booga Roo Feb 12 at 2:57
  • 1
    To be fair to @Joachim I'd initially edited the transcript into the section where the OP's guesses were (sort of merged) which would easily have made it look like I changed the answers themselves - very understandable. – Smock Feb 17 at 11:37
13

Yes. Edits that add image descriptions (or in this case provides a transcript of text in an image) add accessibility without changing the core content of a post and should be accepted.

That said, this particular edit has been accepted, and it appears that the reject vote was a simple mistake.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .