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: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 18:13:42 +0000
To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DM5PR03MB2780FF59FF542E4CB277D5BE9BB70@DM5PR03MB2780.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
  Thanks for the response. I did look through the archives before posting, but couldn't find anything that covered this issue. I'll log the success criterion assignment of the failure technique as you suggest.

Adam, it was actually discussed on the WCAG WG list that is publically readable.  Sorry for not being clear.
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016AprJun/0047.html


  To my way of thinking, the example I provided touches on a few specific issues: Firstly, the understanding of what the orientation and the change in orientation means. Second, the decidability of the meaning of the control (whether it means current state or outcome of activating)

I would agree with David for your particular example in relationship to programmatically determinable does relate to SC 1.3.1 information and relationships or perhaps SC 4.1.2.  If you are actually talking about an x or other text character then likely SC 1.1.1 is not the right place although ASCII art is mapped to SC 1.1.1.  I was more broadly speaking to your question whether visual textual labels were required in addition to icons.


  Third, the broader question of meaning conveyed by  graphical content (i.e., pictographic).
This is something that in my opinion is not covered under the current WCAG 2 which I believe will be addressed to some extent by the task forces for WCAG 2.1.  But at this point it's too soon to know exactly what will or will not make it in given the timeline.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
703.637.8957 (Office)

Visit us online: Website<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/SSBBARTGroup> | Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/ssbbartgroup> | Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/>
Join SSB at Accessing Higher Ground This Month!<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/join-ssb-accessing-higher-ground-month/>

The information contained in this transmission may be attorney privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

From: Adam Cooper [mailto:cooperad@bigpond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 4:08 AM
To: Jonathan Avila; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: SC 1.3.3 - text alternative or no visible label?

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for the response. I did look through the archives before posting, but couldn't find anything that covered this issue. I'll log the success criterion assignment of the failure technique as you suggest.

To my way of thinking, the example I provided touches on a few specific issues:

Firstly, the understanding of what the orientation and the change in orientation means.

Second, the decidability of the meaning of the control (whether it means current state or outcome of activating)

Third, the broader question of meaning conveyed by  graphical content (i.e., pictographic).

I'd be interested to know what the WAI-IG thinks because it will inform my practice.

Cheers,
Adam



From: Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 10:26 AM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: RE: SC 1.3.3 - text alternative or no visible label?


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

This question has been raised before.  If I recall correctly it was determined at the time that the intention of the success criteria was not to require text for icons but instead to address descriptions that relied on sensory information such as bottom right, red button, etc.  From what I understand at this time icons can be used to communicate information without other visual text labels.  I understand this is problematic for some users and I believe is something that is being discussed in the different task forces for future WCAG updates.  In keeping with that discussion - yes, F26 might be more correctly placed under SC 1.1.1.  You may want to log an issue https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
703.637.8957 (Office)

From: Adam Cooper [mailto:cooperad@bigpond.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 11:24 PM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto: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 90 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?

cheers,
Adam




This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com<http://www.bullguard.com/tracking.aspx?affiliate=bullguard&buyaffiliate=smtp&url=/>

This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com<http://www.bullguard.com/tracking.aspx?affiliate=bullguard&buyaffiliate=smtp&url=/>
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2016 18:14:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 23 November 2016 18:14:20 UTC