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 22:01, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> On 20/04/2016 20:33, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>
>>> In short, a sighted user basically has to rely on the latter, some
>>> form of additional plugin/extension, as per:
>>>
>>>>  * A plug in AT (or other AT) can expose the label without having to
>>>>    focus on them.
>>
>> Correct.  Just like blind users need to rely on some sort of screen
>> reader.
>>
>> WCAG makes sure the content is or can be made accessible by the user
>> with their tools.
>
> Following that rationale, you could also say that things such as color
> contrast don't have to be set correctly, as a user could have tools to
> override any page-defined colors, no?

To elaborate a bit further on the wider discussion: while 1.3.3 may not 
necessarily be the correct place for this, but - particularly for 
cognitive disabilities - WCAG does need some requirement (at AAA 
perhaps) to ensure that icons are understandable/clear, either by 
explicitly using an additional visible text label, a way to switch to 
additional labels (for instance, this sort of thing is in many native 
software apps, where you can switch between icon only, icon + text, text 
only for controls/buttons), having a tooltip or similar appear when 
hovering/focusing the icon, 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 21:08:17 UTC