Re: Icon fonts - semantic elements

Yes, you can (and should) associate a technique to more than one SC when
applicable.

Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545

On May 18, 2017 2:44 PM, "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>