animate-elem-29-b

96.1% of the ink matches

pass - measured over 71517 pixels carrying ink in either image.

These results are not meaningful. This check renders a single static frame, and nothing in a test document records which moment in time its reference image was captured at - so a correct SMIL implementation and a broken one are equally likely to mismatch. Animation behaviour is covered by dedicated unit tests instead; see ctgnz/foxglove#208 for a real measurement methodology, still to be worked out.

W3C reference (context only, see #200)

Foxglove

Difference

In the difference panel, red marks pixels that differ beyond tolerance and grey marks matching content. The tinted band, where present, is the <text id="revision"> legend every test carries: it renders in a fallback font this library cannot match, so it is excluded from the comparison entirely rather than failing every test.

What this test checks

The first time you select the link 'fade in', you should see a green square appearing, gradually and smoothly fading from zero to 100% opacity over the course of three seconds. This square is in front of and thus obscures the lower left circle, but is behind the upper right circle which is thus composited on top of the animated green square. Then, when you click on "fade out", the green square will gradually disappear, smoothly fading from 100% to zero opacity over the course of three seconds. The rendered picture should match the reference image, (except for possible variations in the labelling text (per CSS2 rules)) after activating the link on the fade-in button the first time and waiting three seconds for the animation to complete. The picture should remain looking the same way indefinitely, until another link is activated.

View the source document at W3C