Re: SC #78 'Adapting text', and a question regarding consensus on icon fonts

On 20/04/2017 09:07, Detlev Fischer wrote:
> I have a question in the context of a small exchange between
> participants about icon fonts on yesterday's call during the long
> discussion of the SC 78 "Adapting Text"
> Link top current SC on Github:
> I am not sure whether it is good practice to name participants in
> calls here on the list, so I don't.
> The accessibility problems with icon fonts have been noted elsewhere.
> While there may be tools and customised style sheets for adaptation
> that may avoid causing havoc, the application of user style sheets
> the mandate a particular font overall may replace font-based icons
> and thus may make navigation visually unusable even where techniques
> assure the availability of accessible names for non-visual use.
> Now on the call, there was insistence by one participant that the new
> SC 'Adapting text' must not rule out the use of icon fonts, and
> another participant assured that this would not be the case. I wasn't
> sure whether this reflected a WG consensus that I am not aware of. If
> it does, I would like to question that consensus.

So is the thinking here to explicitly exempt icon fonts / elements that 
use them from the SC itself? If so, this will clearly help developers / 
give them a free pass, but from an end user's point of view it 
complicates matters, since their custom stylesheet or whatever tool they 
use to change font face would need to somehow differentiate between 
elements that are and aren't used as icon font containers/placeholders 
(so they'd have styles that say "change the font face for all elements 
on the page to X, except for these types of elements: ...", where the 
latter would likely need to contain lots of variations since sites don't 
have a standard for adding icon font elements)

> Is the position of the AGWG not to introduce new requirements that
> would cause some sites (such as sites relying heavily on icon fonts)
> to fail WCAG 2.1? We know that better, more accessible alternatives
> (SVG) exist. SCs like 'Adapting text' (and others) may in many cases
> warrant a redesign of sites where authors want to conform to 2.1. If
> that seems too much trouble or too expensive, authors may still
> decide to conform to 2.0 and wait for Silver?
> So in sum, I would like to discuss the rationale of people ruling out
> changes that would require work for existing sites to meet WCAG 2.1.
>  Thoughts?

There's certainly a feeling that we don't want to rock the boat too much 
with WCAG 2.1 for fear of being ignored/not getting buy-in...

Patrick H. Lauke | |
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Thursday, 20 April 2017 08:18:49 UTC