Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008

On 20/04/2016 15:01, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> If something is covered by one SC  - we don’t usually cover it by another.
>
> What you describe would be a failure of 1.1.1    which is the first and
> perhaps best known SC as well.
>
> So there is no need to mention that it 1.3.3 also will fail.      In
> creating WCAG we looked carefully at all the SC on a level - and
> designed them to work together.     1.3.3. was crafted to be sure that
> using graphic characters did not slip through because it was not an
> image and was, by definition, a character in a font.     1.1.1 covers
> images that are images.
>

I believe Alan's point is not necessarily about people who cannot 
perceive the images at all and would therefore get text alternative (as 
per 1.1.1), but rather people who can visually perceive the images/icons 
but won't necessarily understand them without a visible additional label 
text - while users falling under the cognitive disability side would be 
most affected (presumably?), this is likely an issue that can apply to 
all sighted users too ("mystery-meat navigation" etc).

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2016 14:09:33 UTC