Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008

If F26 is incorrect is there a plan to remove it? How would a non-insider
(aka John Q Developer or Jane A Accessibilityexpert) know it is incorrect?

I'm not in agreement with F26 being incorrect. A printer icon for example
can be the only instruction provided for understanding and operating the
content to produce a printed version of the content.

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> Alan,
> 1.3.3 is about instructions that reference items on the page.
>
> If you have a round, red image button image that lacks alternative text,
> it will fail 1.1.1.
> If the same button has “subscribe” as alternative text and there is an
> instruction on the page that says “to subscribe, click on the round button”
> then that will be a 1.3.3 issue but not a 1.1.1 issue.
> If the same button has “subscribe” as alternative text and there is an
> instruction on the page that says “to subscribe, click on the red button”
> then that will be a 1.4.1 issue but not a 1.1.1 issue.
>
> F26 is incorrect so I wouldn’t base any understanding of 1.3.3 on it.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility and Standards
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
> From: "alands289@gmail.com" <alands289@gmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 10:22
> To: CAE-Vanderhe <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
> Cc: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>,
> John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, Katie GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>,
> Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>, Jason J White <
> jjwhite@ets.org>
> Subject: RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone
> that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008
> Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 10:22
>
> Gregg,
>
>
>
> The wording in 1.3.3 is not clear and it implies images of items that can
> be perceived as icons.
>
>
>
> I want to understand this to be better able to teach it to developers.
>
>
>
> I think 1.3.3 is an important concept and I find many of the automated
> tools bypass this guideline.
>
> Perhaps due to 1.1.1, we have overlooked what 1.3.3 is all about.
>
>
>
> I don’t get only graphic characters from the wording of F26:
>
> “The objective of this technique is to show how using a graphical symbol
> to convey information can make content difficult to comprehend. A graphical
> symbol may be an image, an image of text or a pictorial or decorative
> character symbol (glyph) which imparts information nonverbally.”
>
>
>
> This is not just for screen reader users, but for all.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, April 20, 2016 10:02 AM
> *To: *alands289 <alands289@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>; GLWAI Guidelines WG org
> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>; Katie
> Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>; Sailesh Panchang
> <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>; Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons
> alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008
>
>
>
> Hi Alan,
>
>
>
> If something is covered by one SC  - we don’t usually cover it by another.
>
>
>
> What you describe would be a failure of 1.1.1    which is the first and
> perhaps best known SC as well.
>
>
>
> So there is no need to mention that it 1.3.3 also will fail.      In
> creating WCAG we looked carefully at all the SC on a level - and designed
> them to work together.     1.3.3. was crafted to be sure that using graphic
> characters did not slip through because it was not an image and was, by
> definition, a character in a font.     1.1.1 covers images that are images.
>
>
>
> Make sense now?
>
>
> *gregg*
>
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2016, at 5:09 AM, ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I’m surprised I’ve not heard back from anyone on this other than Patrick
> ad Jon.
>
>
>
> Has this ever been considered from a cognitive user’s view point and needs?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, April 5, 2016 7:06 PM
> *To: *Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> *Subject: *RE: Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are
> used everywhere now but were not back in 2008
>
>
>
> Does anyone else have any wisdom on this?
>
> The “F26: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.3 due to using a graphical
> symbol alone to convey information”
>
> “The objective of this technique is to show how using a graphical symbol
> to convey information can make content difficult to comprehend. A graphical
> symbol may be an image, an image of text or a pictorial or decorative
> character symbol (glyph) which imparts information nonverbally. Examples of
> graphical symbols include an image of a red circle with a line through it,
> a "smiley" face, or a glyph which represents a check mark, arrow, or other
> symbol but is not the character with that meaning. Assistive technology
> users may have difficulty determining the meaning of the graphical symbol.
> If a graphical symbol is used to convey information, provide an alternative
> using features of the technology or use a different mechanism that can be
> marked with an alternative to represent the graphical symbol. For example,
> an image with a text alternative can be used instead of the glyph.”
>
>
>
> This says to me “icons”.
>
>
>
> This may be a “eureka” moment if icons need more information in order to
> pass 1.3.3.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
> *Sent: *Monday, April 4, 2016 5:32 PM
> *To: *w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> *Subject: *Re: Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are
> used everywhere now but were not back in 2008
>
>
>
> It's my reading of 1.3.3 that it only applies to instructions that
> reference other content by shape.  That is it would fail if you said click
> the square symbol.
>
>
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> > On Apr 4, 2016, at 3:59 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >> On 04/04/2016 20:51, ALAN SMITH wrote:
>
> >> My bad, 1.3.3 as it deals with shapes.
>
> >
>
> > Doing a formal reading of the wording of 1.3.3, I'd say your examples
> would also likely fail 1.3.3 (though I'll admit to not having bothered in
> the past to mark those situations as failures of 1.3.3 as they're usually
> already covered by 1.1.1, 3.3.2 and 4.1.2), and instead reserve 1.3.3 for
> more general cases of shapes (not relating to controls or icons) used to
> convey meaning (e.g. a series of <div>s with lots of CSS styling to make up
> a sort of graph/visualisation).
>
> >
>
> > P
>
> > --
>
> > Patrick H. Lauke
>
> >
>
> > www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>
> > http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
>
> > twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Regards,
Kurt Mattes
Accessibility Program Manager
Deque Systems
610-368-1539