W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: SC 1.3.3 - text alternative or no visible label?

From: Userite <richard@userite.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:09:46 -0000
Message-ID: <930D4AC82FB64E599CF3B5F9689B6813@RichardPC>
To: "Adam Cooper" <cooperad@bigpond.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi Adam,

You are right to infer that non text items that provide information *must* have a text alternative, however there are many ways to achieve this and they do not always have to be immediately visible on the screen, especially if the image is already clear to visual users by itself or within context. So  long as the text you suggest is coded within the button code so that blind people will hear it read out by their screen reader when focus is on the button then you can float it off screen using CSS reasonably safely.


From: Adam Cooper 
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 4:24 AM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org 
Subject: SC 1.3.3 - text alternative or no visible label?

hi all, 


There is some debate at my work about whether (non-decorative) ‘graphical symbols’ need to have visible labels when they provide instruction.


So I have a question about SC1.3.3. 


Is it reasonable to infer from SC1.3.3 that instructions conveyed non-verbally must be accompanied by some form of visible text?


For example, a button with a triangle icon indicating current state (or is it indicating outcome?) that rotates 90º and toggles an expandable section. The button includes offscreen text that says ‘show/hide xyz’.


Is this sufficient to meet SC  1.3.3?


Should anything be read into the use of ‘glyph’ and ‘symbol’ in failure technique F26?


Should F26 be under SC1.1.1 instead?







This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com
Received on Monday, 21 November 2016 00:10:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 21 November 2016 00:10:23 UTC