Robert Burns wrote: > That is I can't imagine any reason to not place an INPUT inside a LABEL Having a control in content of it's own label is illogical, imho. The label ends up being the thing it is a label for as well as the text which labels it. :-P Not only, but also: * The most recent version of 3 popular screen readers (sadly not named, but probably JAWS, Home Page Reader and either Window-Eyes or HAL) did not support implicit label association at the times of testing [1][2]. * The for+id method (explicit association) is reported to work fine in [2]. * Internet Explorer 6 and below does not support implict labelling [3]. The <label> does not become clickable. * Clickable labels increase the clickable area of controls. This is a usability aid to all users of pointing devices (Fitt's Law [4]). * The significance of the clickable area will likely increases as the accuracy of the user decreases. So a pointer user with a motor disability [5] is helped to a greater degree by clickable labels. * Expecting screen readers to associate text with controls merely by proximity, without <label> markup for either implied or explicit association, is reported as being unsuccessful [6]. I can ask around [7] for better references and more up-to-date testing, if necessary. And you can search for them yourself, of course. In the accessibility communities I visit, for+id is considered a must-have feature for its compatibility with current devices and the usability benefits it provides to such a wide range of users. [1] <http://blog.whatwg.org/?p=31#comment-3727> [2] <http://www.jimthatcher.com/webcourse8.htm#wc8.3.2> (Find in page: "For screen reader users".) [3] <http://www.trovster.com/form-label.php#browser-support> [4] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts'_law> [5] <http://www.webaim.org/articles/motor/motordisabilities.php> [6] <http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/info.aspx?page=765> [7] <http://www.accessifyforum.com/> -- Ben 'Cerbera' Millard Collections of Interesting Data Tables <http://sitesurgeon.co.uk/tables/readme.html>Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 09:52:08 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:39:58 GMT