RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone

Andrew and team,

I’m concerned that F26 is specifically placed as a failure in the 1.3.3 section and its title even states
F26: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.3 due to using a graphical symbol alone to convey information
There must have been a lot of discussion on this and we cannot just say that it does not apply.

There would have to be a revision to WCAG 2.0 for this to be removed, I’m sure.

For now, until WCAG Next arrives, I will leave it as part of my training material and cover it under 1.3.3.

Regards,

Alan

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 12:28 PM
To: Kurt Mattes
Cc: ALAN SMITH; Gregg Vanderheiden; jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com; GLWAI Guidelines WG org; John Foliot; Katie Haritos-Shea; Sailesh Panchang; Jason J White
Subject: Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone thatare used everywhere now but were not back in 2008

WCAG doesn’t today require a visible text label for every image or icon.  

I’m not sure what you are disagreeing with specifically, Kurt.  The printer icon may not have instructions (in which case 1.3.3 passes since the instructions that don’t exist didn’t trigger a failure as they can’t rely on sensory characteristics).  We’re thinking about this differently, can you help me understand how more clearly?

I think that the resolution is to make F26 a 1.1.1 failure, although I would want to check to see if it is a complete overlap with another 1.1.1 failure, in which case I would want to remove it.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility and Standards
Adobe 

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk

From: Kurt Mattes <kurt.mattes@deque.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 11:56
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: "alands289@gmail.com" <alands289@gmail.com>, CAE-Vanderhe <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, 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

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 for Windows 10
 
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 10:02 AM
To: alands289
Cc: Jonathan Avila; GLWAI Guidelines WG org; John Foliot; Katie Haritos-Shea; Sailesh Panchang; Jason J White
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 for Windows 10
 
From: ALAN SMITH
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 7:06 PM
To: Jonathan Avila; 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 for Windows 10
 
From: Jonathan Avila
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