W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: SC 1.3.3 - text alternative or no visible label?

From: Herin Hentry <herinhentry@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:06:10 +1100
Message-ID: <CANizmjQj7+vZDRPL1odd-3AJcX4ZtPu5Ck7FxLB2BdZZJY4ncw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Putland <matthew.putland@mediaaccess.org.au>
Cc: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi Adam,

I agree with Matthew.

F26 <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F26.html> fits into 1.3.3.Sensory
Information, as icons without visible labels use tooltips to convey the
purpose of information which is dependent  1) on mouse hover 2) shapes
(Magnifier for search, Home icon for home, Phone icon for Phone number etc,
arrows for expand and collapse)

WCAG suggests fixing this with a 1.1.1 related technique. But, This has
multiple SCs and failures related to this.

         F14: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.3 due to identifying content
only by its shape or location
                 Related technique : H37: Using alt attributes on img
elements (1.1.1 Non-text content)

         F26: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.3 due to using a graphical
symbol alone to convey information
                Related technique : H37: Using alt attributes on img
elements (1.1.1 Non-text content)

         F20: Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 and 4.1.2 due to not
updating text alternatives when changes to non-text content occur
                No related technique listed in WCAG

Using alternative text (that changes as per the context) helps the screen
reader users. To include wider audience we can use Tooltips on hover and on
focus (Sample page : http://cssdeck.com/labs/tooltipscss3).

Hope this helps!

Thanks and Regards,
Herin

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Matthew Putland <
matthew.putland@mediaaccess.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
>
>
> Ø  For example, a button with a triangle icon indicating current state
> (or is it indicating outcome?) that rotates 90º and toggles an expandable
> section. The button includes offscreen text that says ‘show/hide xyz’.
>
>
>
> While your example could fail 1.3.3 Info and relationships, I feel that it
> fits more closely as a* 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/ensure-compat-rsv.html> *issue.
> The triangle itself doesn’t need to be described at all, i.e clearly it’ll
> be useless to tell the screen reader user that the triangle rotated 90
> degrees, but we do need to let the screen reader user know if the
> expandable section is expanded or collapsed, which is the “*Value/State*”
> part of 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value. WAI has provided some techniques for
> resolving this, such as using ARIA-expanded: (code examples)
> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Using_the_WAI-ARIA_aria-expanded_state_to_mark_expandable_and_collapsible_regions>
> .
>
>
>
> F26 <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F26.html> fails 1.3.3 Info and
> Relationships because you’re using a meaningless symbol to display
> important information, I feel that it fits better under 1.3.1 Info and
> Relationships than anywhere else. 1.1.1 Non-text content focuses on Images,
> graphs, infographics, diagrams etc.. Whereas symbols and glyphs can be
> inserted with real-text, which wouldn’t make much sense under 1.1.1. The
> example in F26 addresses using Glyphs/symbols to present important
> information, so I personally think F26 is ok, but I’m happy to
> explore/discuss this further.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> *Matthew Putland*
>
> Senior Analyst, Digital Accessibility | Media Access Australia
>
> 61 Kitchener Avenue, Victoria Park WA 6100
>
> Tel: 08 9311 8230 (direct) 02 9212 6242 (main) Mobile: 0431 924 288 Web:
> www.mediaaccess.org.au
>
>
>
> *My working hours are from 11am-7:30pm AEST (8am-4:30pm AWST).*
>
>
>
> Media Access Australia <http://www.mediaaccess.org.au/> - inclusion
> through technology and Access iQ® <http://www.accessiq.org/> - creating a
> web without limits. Follow us on Twitter @mediaaccessaus
> <https://twitter.com/mediaaccessaus> @AccessiQ
> <https://twitter.com/accessiq>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Cooper [mailto:cooperad@bigpond.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, 20 November 2016 12:25 PM
> *To:* w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> *Subject:* SC 1.3.3 - text alternative or no visible label?
>
>
>
> hi all,
>
>
>
> There is some debate at my work about whether (non-decorative) ‘graphical
> symbols’ need to have visible labels when they provide instruction.
>
>
>
> So I have a question about SC1.3.3.
>
>
>
> Is it reasonable to infer from SC1.3.3 that instructions conveyed
> non-verbally must be accompanied by some form of visible text?
>
>
>
> For example, a button with a triangle icon indicating current state (or is
> it indicating outcome?) that rotates 90º and toggles an expandable section.
> The button includes offscreen text that says ‘show/hide xyz’.
>
>
>
> Is this sufficient to meet SC  1.3.3?
>
>
>
> Should anything be read into the use of ‘glyph’ and ‘symbol’ in failure
> technique F26?
>
>
>
> Should F26 be under SC1.1.1 instead?
>
>
>
> cheers,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
>
> For more info visit www.bullguard.com
> <http://www.bullguard.com/tracking.aspx?affiliate=bullguard&buyaffiliate=smtp&url=/>
>
Received on Monday, 21 November 2016 05:06:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 21 November 2016 05:06:46 UTC