WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Is it ok to intentionally break WCAG 2.5.3?

for

From: Steve Green
Date: Aug 20, 2022 1:09PM

More generally, the WCAG definition of text is "sequence of characters that can be programmatically determined, where the sequence is expressing something in human language" and human language is defined as "language that is spoken, written or signed (through visual or tactile means) to communicate with humans".

https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/label-in-name.html#dfn-text
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/label-in-name.html#dfn-human-language

This explains why "aA" is not considered to be text. Likewise, an "x" character is not text when used as a "Close" button, so that would not fail SC 2.5.3. The same applies in other scenarios, such as "i" icons for information popups.

A further consequence is that the non-text colour contrast requirement of 3:1 applies to those characters, not the 4.5:1 ratio required for text.

Steve Green
Managing Director
Test Partners Ltd


-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
Sent: 20 August 2022 19:08
To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Is it ok to intentionally break WCAG 2.5.3?

On 20/08/2022 19:02, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> In this case, the "aA" text isn't really representing text/a word, but
> it's arguably more a graphic. So I wouldn't ding this under 2.5.3.

Ah, forgot that the understanding doc actually touches on this too https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/label-in-name.html#symbolic-text-characters

Long story short, not a failure.

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke