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

Perhaps we could require the text label of icon show up on hover/focus, in
WCAG Next. Requiring it visible all the time will likely get push back from
those trying to save screen real estate.

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Michael Pluke <
Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com> wrote:

> Kurt’s comment that “My first encounter with a hamburger menu left me
> dumbfounded” clearly illustrates an important point – the meaning/function
> of many icons is often far from obvious.
>
>
>
> Icons without text can often be a problem for everyone, at least
> initially. Looked at this way, this could be described as a usability
> problem. In the past this would have put it out of scope for WCAG.
>
>
>
> But now we realise that this could be an insurmountable problem for some
> people who may never learn the meaning of the icons. For this reason I
> fully agree with those people who say that the COGA TF should address this
> issue – and, fortunately, the TF has been looking at this and similar
> issues.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* Kurt Mattes [mailto:kurt.mattes@deque.com]
> *Sent:* 20 April 2016 18:14
> *To:* Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
> *Cc:* alands289 <alands289@gmail.com>; Jonathan Avila <
> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>; GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>;
> John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>; Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>;
> Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>; Jason J White <
> jjwhite@ets.org>
>
> *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
>
>
>
> @Andrew - it is a conversation we'll need to have over drinks one day. For
> now, suffice it to say that there is an assumption about icons with no text
> being self-explanatory, they convey all that is necessary for understanding
> and using the content. I believe that is not always the case. My first
> encounter with a hamburger menu left me dumbfounded.
>
>
>
> Appreciate the F26 explanation.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <
> gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:
>
> Sorry
>
>
>
> You are correct.  I was thinking of 1.3.1
>
>
>
> 1.3.3. has to do with instructions only.     if there are no instructions
> - then 1.3.3 is met
>
>
>
> Andrew did a great job of distinguishing the roles of different SC
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *gregg*
>
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2016, at 7:22 AM, ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Gregg,
>
>
>
> The wording in 1.3.3 is not clear and it implies images of items that can
> be perceived as icons.
>
>
>
> I want to understand this to be better able to teach it to developers.
>
>
>
> I think 1.3.3 is an important concept and I find many of the automated
> tools bypass this guideline.
>
> Perhaps due to 1.1.1, we have overlooked what 1.3.3 is all about.
>
>
>
> I don’t get only graphic characters from the wording of F26:
>
> “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.”
>
>
>
> This is not just for screen reader users, but for all.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, April 20, 2016 10:02 AM
> *To: *alands289 <alands289@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>; GLWAI Guidelines WG org
> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>; Katie
> Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>; Sailesh Panchang
> <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>; Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>
> *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
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Make sense now?
>
>
> *gregg*
>
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2016, at 5:09 AM, ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, April 5, 2016 7:06 PM
> *To: *Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>; 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 <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
> *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
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Kurt Mattes
>
> Accessibility Program Manager
>
> Deque Systems
>
> 610-368-1539
>