W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: HEADERS, FOR whom - any ID?

From: Ben 'Cerbera' Millard <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 22:41:40 +0100
Message-ID: <001701c7d6e0$3ff57de0$0201a8c0@ben9xr3up2lv7v>
To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "Leif Halvard Silli" <lhs@malform.no>
Cc: "HTMLWG" <public-html@w3.org>

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> FOR/ID and HEADERS/ID are twins - they're there for the same reasons!
>
> These are some additional reasons for including for="" that do not apply 
> to headers="".
>
> * Allows for labels and controls to be separated, which allows for more 
> flexibility in the structure and style of the page.
> * Increased usability by allowing users to click on the label to focus the 
> control. That's particularly important for checkboxes and radio buttons.
> * It is very widely used in reality.

The first two seem equally applicable to headers+id:

* Allows for header and data cells to be separated, which allows for more 
flexibility in the structure and style of tables.
* Increased usability for users of text-to-speech devices by hearing those 
headers which give context to the currently selected data cell.

Do you have research to back up the third point?

In my professional work (retrofitting accessibility to existing websites and 
building templates for new websites), for+id it is not widely used in 
reality. Indeed, in my experience it is rare to find a <label> element, let 
alone a <label for> and rarer still a <label for> which correctly matches 
with the intended <input id>. That's only *my* experience, though. :-)

Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> I of course want the opposite of removing either HEADERS/ID or FOR/ID.

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> [...] it seems likely that the headers attribute will be added in due 
> course.

This should be good news to Leif and perhaps some other Participants.

--
Ben 'Cerbera' Millard
Collections of Interesting Data Tables
<http://sitesurgeon.co.uk/!dev/tables/readme.html> 
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2007 21:42:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:48 UTC