Re: Icon fonts - semantic elements

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!


On 17/05/2017, 12:47, "Laura Carlson" <> 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

    Using aria-hidden=true on an icon font that AT should ignore

    Unicode Character with an On-Screen Text Alternative

    Using aria-hidden="true" on Unicode characters that AT should ignore

    If we don't want to pursue them, we could recycle parts of them for
    James' technique.
    Kindest regards,
    On 5/17/17, Alastair Campbell <> 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" <>
    > 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 []
    >     Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:56 PM
    >     To: Repsher, Stephen J <>; Alastair Campbell
    > <>; Jim Allan <>
    >     Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <>
    >     Subject: Re: Icon fonts - semantic elements
    >     Hi Steve, Alastair, and all,
    >     On 5/16/17, Repsher, Stephen J <> 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]

    >     --
    >     Laura L. Carlson
    >     --
    >     Laura L. Carlson
    Laura L. Carlson

Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2017 13:04:43 UTC