Wilco: we got halfway through this item last week
<kathyeng> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/aria/ARIA24.html
Kathy: would adding a role=image to an icon pass?
Wilco: doesn't believe its a wcag requirement
... buttons have presentation children, so this would not work
Wilco; the problem is that this is an image where the SC would not normally apply
Wilco: links can have images in them, where the role would work
Kathy: prefer to remove passed example 6
... SC intent is visible text being in the element label
... if a search icon has no text, the alt text is hidden
Wilco: we can either leave as-is, change example without changing applicability, or determine whether applicability can be cahnged
... how would we change the applicability?
... WCAG definition of text is not objective
<kathyeng> text: sequence of characters that can be programmatically determined, where the sequence is expressing something in human language
Wilco: do folks agree that this is subjective?
Kathy: the spyglass is used in this example for a search icon
... the visible text on the symbol is the text used in the label
... with this example, there is no visible text
<scribe> Unknown if there is a way to programmatically determine differences between glyphs and characters in fonts
Wilco: is there a difference between passed examples 5 & 6?
Kathy: text should not be considered a visible label when used in a symbolic manner
<kathyeng> Symbolic text characters For the purposes of this SC, text should not be considered a visible label if it is used in a symbolic manner, rather than directly expressing something in human language as per the definition of text in WCAG. For example, 1.4.5 Images of Text describes considerations for "symbolic text characters." In the images of text example "B", "I", and "ABC" appear on icons in a text editor, where they are meant to symbolize [CUT]
Wilco: this rule makes it applicable, but this as an exception
Kathy: is the exception necessary?
... symbolic text characters are not covered by 2.5.3, but this expectation does
<shadi> +1 to Kathy
MaryJo: the passed examples will not fail the SC
Wilco: can we accept these examples?
... we are waiting on clarification from Detlev, otherwise ready to move ahead
<trevor> +1 pending detlev
<maryjom> +1 to publish, pending Detlev's agreement
Wilco: other than Detlev's feedback, are we ready to proceed with publishing
+1
<kathyeng> 0
<Wilco> proposed resolution: CFC, assuming Detlev has no further changes he wants to see
RESOLUTION: send out for CFC, assuming Detlev has no further changes he wants to see