- From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 13:04:08 +0000
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
- CC: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
I don’t think any of those cover the same thing, but I’m sure we could use aspects of them. I think it would make sense to make sure there is coverage of different scenarios, as Jonathan suggested, so we should try resurrecting some of them. Thanks, I had forgotten about those! -Alastair On 17/05/2017, 12:47, "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Alastair, Stephen, Jim, and all, Good question, Alastair. If we can't associate James' technique with 2 SCs we could write up slightly different variations of the techniques for 1.3.1 and 4.1.2. Question: Last year I wrote some techniques for Icon Fonts and for Unicode Characters that never got accepted by the AGWG. Do we want to want to edit/adjust/pursue any of them as part of this? The following are what are in the Wiki: Icon Font with an On-Screen Text Alternative https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Icon_Font_with_an_On-Screen_Text_Alternative Using aria-hidden=true on an icon font that AT should ignore https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Using_aria-hidden%3Dtrue_on_an_icon_font_that_AT_should_ignore Unicode Character with an On-Screen Text Alternative https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Unicode_Character_with_an_On-Screen_Text_Alternative Using aria-hidden="true" on Unicode characters that AT should ignore https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Using_a_Decorative_Unicode_Character If we don't want to pursue them, we could recycle parts of them for James' technique. Thoughts? Thanks. Kindest regards, Laura On 5/17/17, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote: > I agree, I think we can write a failure (and a positive technique) and > associate it with two SCs though? > > At least we can start there. > > Cheers, > > -Alastair > > On 17/05/2017, 01:28, "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> > wrote: > > I think we need to pursue both avenues - 1.3.1 and 4.1.2. > > Every other look I take, I don't see how it's not a failure already for > 1.3.1. An icon in the presentation has 2 pieces of "information" associated > with it: > > 1. What it means or does, which must be provided programmatically using > an aria-label > 2. The fact that it's an image, which can only be conveyed > programmatically using role="img". The only way to make this available in > text would be to add it to the label (e.g. aria-label="Image: W3C logo"), > but that's a tiny loophole. > > What am I missing that this isn't already a 1.3.1 failure? > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:56 PM > To: Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; Alastair Campbell > <acampbell@nomensa.com>; Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu> > Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Icon fonts - semantic elements > > Hi Steve, Alastair, and all, > > On 5/16/17, Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote: > > I don’t necessarily disagree, but how did you resolve it would be a > > failure for non-UI components? > > Do you mean maybe Jim still should open an HTML Issue for a violation > of 1.3.1 for non-UI components? Alastair previously suggested 1.3.1 and > said until that is implemented in HTML, we don't have a standard for authors > or user agents. So we would have nothing for WCAG to hook into for > conformance [1]. > > Thanks. > > Kindest Regards, > Laura > [1] > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-low-vision-a11y-tf/2017Apr/0196.html > -- > Laura L. Carlson > > > -- > Laura L. Carlson > > > > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2017 13:04:43 UTC