Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 from Andrew Kirkpatrick on 2016-04-20 (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org from April to June 2016)

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:36:19 +0000
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EDD7193E-C6B4-45A0-B2CD-77AC3824539B@adobe.com>

>
>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.

Patrick, this is where the input from the COGA TF will help in defining this.  This may be needed but it is not currently part of WCAG 2.0. I’m sure we will hear more about this topic from the TF and what new success criteria are suggested for a future version of WCAG.

AWK

Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2016 21:36:49 UTC