RE: Icon fonts - semantic elements

The definition of "non-text content" from WCAG 2.0 might be more relevant here because it includes a note that mentions emoticons and ASCII art.  If those are not text, then I don't see how anyone would consider an icon font as text.  Perhaps this needs to be explicitly stated in the note for 2.1.  I just opened a GitHub issue for this addition:



https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/296




Steve





-----Original Message-----
From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 11:25 AM
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Icon fonts - semantic elements



I was going to say “image”, and I think the definition of text confirms that: It is not (necessarily) a sequence, and it is not in a human language.



Alternative text (1.1.1) doesn’t help the LV scenario, it is “Information… conveyed through presentation” that needs to be programmatically determined.



It is annoying that:

- 1.3.1 excepts things which “are available in text” which some implementation do have (just not visible text).

- 4.1.2 applies to “user interface components”, and some examples are not interactive, they are informational.



Has there been a ruling previously on whether “available in text” needs to be visible?



Cheers,



-Alastair





On 17/05/2017, 16:08, "Jonathan Avila" <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>> wrote:



    The definition of Text from WCAG 2 is likely relevant.



    sequence of characters that can be programmatically determined, where the sequence is expressing something in human language



    Jonathan







    -----Original Message-----

    From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com]

    Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 11:01 AM

    To: Repsher, Stephen J; Jonathan Avila; Alastair Campbell

    Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf

    Subject: Re: Icon fonts - semantic elements



    Hi Stephen, Jonathan, Alastair, and all,



    On 5/17/17, Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com<mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>> wrote:



    >> In my opinion, SC 1.3.1 is already met by providing aria-label or CSS

    >> off-screen text that is near/as subtree of the icon/icon link and

    >> conveys the same meaning.

    >

    > [Steve] Yes but that's 1.1.1 and not 1.3.1, right?



    Fundamental question to all:



    Do we consider icon fonts to be text or non-text content? The answer to that may help us sort it out.



    The icon fonts definitions that I have found are at:

    https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Icon_Font_with_an_On-Screen_Text_Alternative#Definitions




    Kindest Regards,

    Laura



    --

    Laura L. Carlson