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

So a font icon that passes 2.1 would look something like this:

<i class="fa fa-myfont" role="img" aria-hidden="true"></i><span
class="sr-text>replacement</span>

Is that the way?

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> > Are these icons going to disappear if the font family is over ridden by
> a user style sheet?
>
>
>
> Currently, yes, because they are working to WCAG 2.0 and haven’t
> considered font-replacement. The focus has been on WCAG 2.0 SCs,  primarily
> screen-reader access.
>
>
>
> However, if a technique were to use the role=img attribute, and the
> user-scripts incorporate that, then it would be fine.
>
>
>
> It is in that sweet spot of:
>
> ·         A current problem;
>
> ·         A relatively easy solution.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> *Date: *Thursday, 20 April 2017 at 14:50
> *To: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Cc: *Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>, WCAG <
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: SC #78 'Adapting text', and a question regarding consensus
> on icon fonts
>
>
>
> Here's the current thinking around icon font accessibility
>
>
>
> http://fontawesome.io/accessibility/
>
>
>
> Are these icons going to disappear if the font family is over ridden by a
> user style sheet?
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
> Detlev wrote:
> > So would this basically be a technique *for users* who would have to
> update any custom stylesheets they may be using by working in this
> exception for elements with role=img?
>
> Yes, but it has to work both ways, this would also be a sufficient
> technique for the new SC. I.e. if you use font icons that are problematic
> when fonts are replaced, then it musts be marked up appropriately.
>
> It would also need to be included as something in the testing text
> (understanding doc), and recommended for user-agent side solutions.
>
> >  I guess there is nothing authors can do to safely exempt icon fonts
> from any manipulation by user style sheets that fail to cater for icon
> fonts this way, correct?
>
> Correct, but if this is a known thing included in the techniques and
> understanding document, there is a viable solution.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>