Re: Icon fonts - semantic elements

Hi  Alastair, Stephen, Jim, and all,

Good question, Alastair.  If we can't associate James' technique with
2 SCs we could write up slightly different variations of the
techniques for 1.3.1 and 4.1.2.

Question: Last year I wrote some techniques for Icon Fonts and for
Unicode Characters that never got accepted by the AGWG. Do we want to
want to edit/adjust/pursue any of them as part of this? The following
are what are in the Wiki:

Icon Font with an On-Screen Text Alternative
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Icon_Font_with_an_On-Screen_Text_Alternative

Using aria-hidden=true on an icon font that AT should ignore
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Using_aria-hidden%3Dtrue_on_an_icon_font_that_AT_should_ignore

Unicode Character with an On-Screen Text Alternative
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Unicode_Character_with_an_On-Screen_Text_Alternative

Using aria-hidden="true" on Unicode characters that AT should ignore
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Using_a_Decorative_Unicode_Character

If we don't want to pursue them, we could recycle parts of them for
James' technique.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Kindest regards,
Laura

On 5/17/17, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> I agree, I think we can write a failure (and a positive technique) and
> associate it with two SCs though?
>
> At least we can start there.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
> On 17/05/2017, 01:28, "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>
> wrote:
>
>     I think we need to pursue both avenues - 1.3.1 and 4.1.2.
>
>     Every other look I take, I don't see how it's not a failure already for
> 1.3.1.  An icon in the presentation has 2 pieces of "information" associated
> with it:
>
>     1. What it means or does, which must be provided programmatically using
> an aria-label
>     2. The fact that it's an image, which can only be conveyed
> programmatically using role="img".  The only way to make this available in
> text would be to add it to the label (e.g. aria-label="Image: W3C logo"),
> but that's a tiny loophole.
>
>     What am I missing that this isn't already a 1.3.1 failure?
>
>     Steve
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com]
>     Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:56 PM
>     To: Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; Alastair Campbell
> <acampbell@nomensa.com>; Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
>     Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
>     Subject: Re: Icon fonts - semantic elements
>
>     Hi Steve, Alastair, and all,
>
>     On 5/16/17, Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote:
>     > I don’t necessarily disagree, but how did you resolve it would be a
>     > failure for non-UI components?
>
>     Do you mean maybe Jim still  should open an HTML Issue for a violation
> of 1.3.1 for  non-UI components?  Alastair previously suggested 1.3.1 and
> said until that is implemented in HTML, we don't have a standard for authors
> or user agents. So we would have nothing for WCAG to hook into for
> conformance [1].
>
>     Thanks.
>
>     Kindest Regards,
>     Laura
>     [1]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-low-vision-a11y-tf/2017Apr/0196.html
>     --
>     Laura L. Carlson
>
>
>     --
>     Laura L. Carlson
>
>
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2017 11:48:33 UTC