- From: Adam Powell <adam@adaminfinitum.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 04:46:38 -0400
- To: Ramón Corominas <listas@ramoncorominas.com>
- Cc: Thomas Birch <thomas_birch@ieci.es>, davebest@cogeco.ca, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CALsiKnPYwvrXKdddiB6keQCA9ahpt19CTycz0XBMyUer3FBhAQ@mail.gmail.com>
I built my own website with Twitter Bootstrap and this bothered me enough that I customized it; here's my approach: - Even if you use a version of the framework which uses font icons (sharp on any screen, at any resolution, as they are vector based) instead of CSS sprites chances are high you are loading a whole lot of unnecessary stuff, this slows your site down and degrades user experience, especially in the context of mobile. - Instead, I downloaded a custom icon set (I used IcoMoon) that only included what I needed. - I then searched through the Unicode references to find proper, meaningful Unicode references whenever possible. - While I did use <i>, with data-attributes, I was able to find meaningful Unicode characters for the majority of icons (it was time-consuming, though). - While I know the support for this is lacking, it seemed better than nothing so I gave all icons a descriptive 'title' attribute. I welcome feedback on these techniques, I do a fair amount of front-end development and always try to bear accessibility in mind but I am pretty new to serious accessibility considerations. I wasn't thrilled with using <i> elements but out of brevity stayed with it instead of <span>...I wish the spec. included something like <icon>. *Adam Powell* Learn more at my website:* *Adam Infinitum <http://www.adaminfinitum.com> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Ramón Corominas <listas@ramoncorominas.com>wrote: > I would say that the "common practice" argument is not an argument. The > most common practice is indeed "to be inaccessible". There are many popular > libraries that make even more weird uses of the HTML elements, but that > doesn't mean that we will accept them because of the "common practice". > > Anyway, the main issue with this use of <i> tags for icons is that they > are usually left empty and the icon is inserted using some CSS background > technique, which means that screen reader users and high contrast users > receive no information at all. > > The semantic of the <i> tag will probably not cause big issues, but if the > screen reader user configures it to read the tag with a different tone of > voice, his/her perception of the content might be a bit strange. > > Cheers, > Ramón. > > > Thomas asked: > > I have a follow-up question related with the use of the <i> tag. When >> testing a web site's accessibility, we found an extensive use of the *<i> >> tag **in conjunction with icons*, such as: >> >> >> <i class="icon-right-default icon-white"></i> >> >> We raised an issue because we consider this use of the tag doesn't meet >> the defined semantics, but we were replied that this use of the tag is >> common practice, and that popular libraries such as Twitter Bootstrap use >> the i tag for this purpose and it has no affect on accessibility. >> >> *Should this use of the tag be considered incorrect, or will the >> semantics of the tag eventually evolve to include this common use?* >> >> >> Thank you very much for your time. Regards, >> > > >
Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 08:47:26 UTC