Re: Icon fonts - semantic elements

Hi Stephen,

Thank you very much  for filing this bug!

Kindest Regards,
Laura

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


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Thursday, 18 May 2017 19:44:17 UTC