Re[2]: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008

+1 to this being a 1.1.1 failure.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com>
To: "ALAN SMITH" <alands289@gmail.com>; "jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com" 
<jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>; "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: "John Foliot" <john.foliot@deque.com>; "Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL" 
<ryladog@gmail.com>; "Sailesh Panchang" <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>; 
"'Jason J White'" <jjwhite@ets.org>
Sent: 20/04/2016 13:42:22
Subject: Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone 
that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008

>Alan,
>I do have trouble with this Failure.  This seems like a 1.1.1 failure 
>rather than a 1.3.3 failure.
>
>Thanks,
>AWK
>
>Andrew Kirkpatrick
>Group Product Manager, Accessibility and Standards
>Adobe
>
>akirkpat@adobe.com
>http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>From: "alands289@gmail.com" <alands289@gmail.com>
>Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 08:09
>To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, WCAG 
><w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>Cc: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, Katie GMAIL 
><ryladog@gmail.com>, Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>, 
>'Jason J White' <jjwhite@ets.org>
>Subject: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone 
>that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008
>Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>Resent-Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 08:09
>
>I’m surprised I’ve not heard back from anyone on this other than 
>Patrick ad Jon.
>
>
>
>Has this ever been considered from a cognitive user’s view point and 
>needs?
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>Alan
>
>
>
>Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>
>
>
>From: ALAN SMITH
>Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 7:06 PM
>To: Jonathan Avila; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>Subject: RE: Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are 
>used everywhere now but were not back in 2008
>
>
>
>Does anyone else have any wisdom on this?
>
>The “F26: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.3 due to using a graphical 
>symbol alone to convey information”
>
>“The objective of this technique is to show how using a graphical 
>symbol to convey information can make content difficult to comprehend. 
>A graphical symbol may be an image, an image of text or a pictorial or 
>decorative character symbol (glyph) which imparts information 
>nonverbally. Examples of graphical symbols include an image of a red 
>circle with a line through it, a "smiley" face, or a glyph which 
>represents a check mark, arrow, or other symbol but is not the 
>character with that meaning. Assistive technology users may have 
>difficulty determining the meaning of the graphical symbol. If a 
>graphical symbol is used to convey information, provide an alternative 
>using features of the technology or use a different mechanism that can 
>be marked with an alternative to represent the graphical symbol. For 
>example, an image with a text alternative can be used instead of the 
>glyph.”
>
>
>
>This says to me “icons”.
>
>
>
>This may be a “eureka” moment if icons need more information in order 
>to pass 1.3.3.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Alan
>
>
>
>
>
>Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>
>
>
>From: Jonathan Avila
>Sent: Monday, April 4, 2016 5:32 PM
>To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are 
>used everywhere now but were not back in 2008
>
>
>
>It's my reading of 1.3.3 that it only applies to instructions that 
>reference other content by shape.  That is it would fail if you said 
>click the square symbol.
>
>
>
>Jon
>
>
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> > On Apr 4, 2016, at 3:59 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> 
>wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >> On 04/04/2016 20:51, ALAN SMITH wrote:
>
> >> My bad, 1.3.3 as it deals with shapes.
>
> >
>
> > Doing a formal reading of the wording of 1.3.3, I'd say your examples 
>would also likely fail 1.3.3 (though I'll admit to not having bothered 
>in the past to mark those situations as failures of 1.3.3 as they're 
>usually already covered by 1.1.1, 3.3.2 and 4.1.2), and instead reserve 
>1.3.3 for more general cases of shapes (not relating to controls or 
>icons) used to convey meaning (e.g. a series of <div>s with lots of CSS 
>styling to make up a sort of graph/visualisation).
>
> >
>
> > 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
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>