https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32101
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Friesen <mediawiki-b...@nadir-seen-fire.com> 2012-04-04 08:53:07 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > "Icon Fonts" can be useful for certain cases: > http://css-tricks.com/examples/IconFont/ > > > This technique can be used for single-color scalable icons (e.g., fold/unfold > menu icons, custom bullets in unordered lists, etc.). > It represents an alternative to SVG which is less powerful but more compatible > since Webfonts can work in most browsers (desktop and mobile). Looks like something we should open up a new bug on integration into ResourceLoader for. We could probably do something really nice making it easy for skins to enable those and switch icon fonts. Though there are plenty of spots we're still going to need svg for. Images that aren't one colour silhouettes. And of course actual uploaded svg images. Also that author seams to be trying to short shrug off the possibility of flaws and pretend that none exist without letting anyone else have a say or letting the reader make their own decision on what disadvantages/advantages they want: - Icon fonts are 1-color silhouettes, so they can't be used anywhere your design calls for an actual non-simple icon. At that point you have to use .svg. - A .svg can be used as a background image, icon fonts can't. So for all the author prances about how this works in IE6... it doesn't. Because IE doesn't support :before till IE8. You 'can' use it in a way that works in IE6, but that only works if you use the gibberish inside the page content. Which of course if you do that negates his argument that this can be done in a way that's friendly to screen readers. So your stuck with either missing browser support or killing accessibility. Not a very nice tradeoff to have to decide on when a .png + .svg bgimage setup would work for both cases. - In fact, I'm very wary of his argument that this works for screen readers. He seems to be under the common misinterpretation that screen readers work like text browser and don't support css. Real screen readers nowadays work using real browsers (ie: They use IE, Firefox, etc...). This means that despite his argument that the gibberish is hidden in css it's possible that screen readers may still end up reading them. The argument that "Some fonts even map the characters to the best ones possible" is also flawed because a screen reader will not necessarily treat <unicode flag icon> the same as "Flag". Browser Shots doesn't seam to want to do IE8 or IE6 right now but this is what his page looks like in IE7: http://api.browsershots.org/png/original/9f/9faaa11fef73f703f4b2461f489475b2.png -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
