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: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:05:58 +0100
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <69e580cb-db8b-9930-f831-03d3c872408a@splintered.co.uk>
On 20/04/2017 15:03, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> On 20/04/2017 14:56, Alastair Campbell wrote:
> [...]
>> However, if a technique were to use the role=img attribute, and the
>> user-scripts incorporate that, then it would be fine.
> [...]
>> Having the SC means we put a stake in the ground about the requirement,
>> and can flesh out the understanding and techniques, to get out of the
>> catch-22.
> But isn't the catch-22 still there, just codified? i.e. you'd have a
> normative SC which would require authors to follow one particular
> non-normative technique in order for their icon fonts to be officially
> exempt from the SC?

And to be clear, what I'm getting at is that I'd rather NOT see an 
exemption in the normative SC language at all, and a recommendation in 
the techniques for authors to switch to using inline SVG or similar, 
more robust techniques (as icon fonts are arguably a clever but 
non-semantic hack)

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
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2017 14:06:28 UTC

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