W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

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

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:12:43 +0000
To: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2F733175-AC1D-475C-B437-1B66AFE43F13@nomensa.com>
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>  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

That wouldn’t be my preference. We are in a catch-22 at the moment, without an SC requirement there is no reason for developers to consider the icon-embedding method they use, and without known good-ways of embedding icons there is nothing for user-side scripts to exempt.

James’ technique looks good (marking font-icons with role of image), perhaps we can use that as a defacto-technique that meets the SC? 

Detlev wrote:
> > 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 no point in adding a requirement if all sites pass it already. On the other hand, doubling or tripling the work required for accessibility could cause people & organisations to reject it outright. 

For me, the sweet spot is to add new requirements which might cause work in the short term, but once embedded are relatively easy to continue using. It is the size of ongoing ‘burden’ that is problematic, not the shorter-term adjustment of which techniques you use to do things.



Received on Thursday, 20 April 2017 09:13:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:12 UTC