- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:11:58 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 20/04/2017 15:06, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote: > I think that it is a problem if we forbid any > method/technique/technology that can be used in an accessible manner. > So, while using icon fonts seems to be challenging to do well, it > also seems possible to do well (see > https://www.filamentgroup.com/lab/bulletproof_icon_fonts.html for > problems and some solutions). If this resource is correct, we > shouldn’t be doing anything to forbid icon fonts _done well_ but > should be addressing the cases where the use of icon fonts causes > problems. There are techniques that can make icon fonts accessible to AT users, and to users that run with browsers that don't support font-face, but no technique that makes them impervious to users changing their font settings (note that this scenario is not mentioned in the Filamentgroup's article). > Then we can have a failure that shows how to fail the SC by using > icon fonts incorrectly, and techniques that show positive examples of > how to pass the SC, but we don’t want to be in the situation of > saying that “yes, what you are doing is accessible, but because most > people don’t do that correctly we are banning the practice”. It's clearly not accessible if we're trying to allow for users to also be able to arbitrarily change/override fonts though (which this SC does) 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
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2017 14:12:26 UTC