Open mbgower opened 1 year ago
@mbgower Not sure if it is too early to comment (since you said "to be continued") - but I have problems understanding this bit:
We see a problem with the definition of image of text, since it actually says nothing about what is meant by a "particular visual effect". The intention is clear -- a situation where text is rendered as an image that looks like text but is not copyable text; however the language seems to allow text that is transformed with any visual effect to pass. That means the magnifying glass would still count as an image of text (and thus this would fail label in name, since the aria-label "find" does not equal or contain "search").
I do not see how the magnifying glass would count as image of text. I would never think of a transposition of a text string into an icon as a "particular visual effect" (like glow, 3D look, whatever). Visually, an icon is clearly an image. I guess it will be rare seeing those weird renderings you list for the Materials icon font family but if "1 2 3 [Magnifying glass icon]" came to pass, I think the accname would need to include "1 2 3". And I do not see how it could fail 2.5.3, since the string "search" is nowhere to be seen, and therefore cannot be required to mach the accname in aria-label
.
A proposed rule in ACT for Visible Label is Part of Accessible Name contains a pass example (Passed Example 6) where a decorative font is used to transform a text string into an image (in this case a magnifying glass) while the aria-label assigned is "Find".
The explanation reads:
Investigating this, we identified a few considerations we would like reviewed by the working group.
Inconsistent rendering
First, the Materials Icon font family used has the ability to respond to text in a number of ways:
The example shown takes the string "search" inside the button and transforms it into a magnifying glass icon.
Remove the "h" from the string ("searc") and nothing is rendered.
Add "123" before "search" and a magnifying glass will be rendered with a small 123 preceding it.
Replace the numbers with "IBM" and it will be rendered (much larger than the numbers)
Replace the whole string with a "U" and it will be rendered
Add a "p" to make it "Up" and only the U will be rendered, although the button will widen as if more has been rendered
Replace "search" with "SEARCH" and it will render the text, not the magnifying glass
Normative text and definitions
The normative text for Success Criterion 2.5.3 Label in Name reads
Test is defined as:
Images of text is defined as:
We see a problem with the definition of image of text, since it actually says nothing about what is meant by a "particular visual effect". The intention is clear -- a situation where text is rendered as an image that looks like text but is not copyable text; however the language seems to allow text that is transformed with any visual effect to pass. That means the magnifying glass would still count as an image of text (and thus this would fail label in name, since the aria-label "find" does not equal or contain "search"). Possibly it also means that the blank and partially rendered text is also an image of text, also representing a failure in this example.
Proposed change to image of text definition
This could be at least partially addressed by altering the image of text definition to read:
This would ensure that a scan of a page with writing will meet the definition (which is debatable with the "particular visual effect" wording), as will an image of a text heading; however, when the text is transformed through decorative fonts to the point where they are no longer a sequence of characters, they would not be considered images of text.
Looking back at the explanation in the example, they also mention non-text content, which is defined as:
[to be continued; just submitting before I accidentally delete or something]