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

I agree that the visible all the time option would not be popular with software developers and probably not popular with many users.

Hover/focus solutions– the disappearance of which several people in the thread have regretted - seems more likely to be acceptable to developers and users alike.

Mike

From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: 21 April 2016 15:03
To: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
Cc: Kurt Mattes <kurt.mattes@deque.com>; Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>; alands289 <alands289@gmail.com>; 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

Perhaps we could require the text label of icon show up on hover/focus, in WCAG Next. Requiring it visible all the time will likely get push back from those trying to save screen real estate.

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com<mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>> wrote:
Kurt’s comment that “My first encounter with a hamburger menu left me dumbfounded” clearly illustrates an important point – the meaning/function of many icons is often far from obvious.

Icons without text can often be a problem for everyone, at least initially. Looked at this way, this could be described as a usability problem. In the past this would have put it out of scope for WCAG.

But now we realise that this could be an insurmountable problem for some people who may never learn the meaning of the icons. For this reason I fully agree with those people who say that the COGA TF should address this issue – and, fortunately, the TF has been looking at this and similar issues.

Mike

From: Kurt Mattes [mailto:kurt.mattes@deque.com<mailto:kurt.mattes@deque.com>]
Sent: 20 April 2016 18:14
To: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org<mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>>
Cc: alands289 <alands289@gmail.com<mailto:alands289@gmail.com>>; Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>>; GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>; John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>>; Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>>; Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com<mailto:sailesh.panchang@deque.com>>; Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto: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

@Andrew - it is a conversation we'll need to have over drinks one day. For now, suffice it to say that there is an assumption about icons with no text being self-explanatory, they convey all that is necessary for understanding and using the content. I believe that is not always the case. My first encounter with a hamburger menu left me dumbfounded.

Appreciate the F26 explanation.

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org<mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>> wrote:
Sorry

You are correct.  I was thinking of 1.3.1

1.3.3. has to do with instructions only.     if there are no instructions - then 1.3.3 is met

Andrew did a great job of distinguishing the roles of different SC



gregg

On Apr 20, 2016, at 7:22 AM, ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com<mailto:alands289@gmail.com>> wrote:

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<mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 10:02 AM
To: alands289<mailto:alands289@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Avila<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>; GLWAI Guidelines WG org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; John Foliot<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>; Katie Haritos-Shea<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>; Sailesh Panchang<mailto:sailesh.panchang@deque.com>; Jason J White<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:alands289@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 7:06 PM
To: Jonathan Avila<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2016 5:32 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://www.splintered.co.uk/> | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com<http://redux.deviantart.com/>
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>




--
Regards,
Kurt Mattes
Accessibility Program Manager
Deque Systems
610-368-1539<tel:610-368-1539>

________________________________