FW: [WebAIM] WCAG and form labels

Do we consider this a sufficient technique?

> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 9:59 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: RE: [WebAIM] WCAG and form labels
> 
> Jared,
> Your example below is explicitly labeled.  I've always
> thought that if you wrap a label around a control that it
> sould count as explicit, but it doesn't unless the for/id
> are used.  When they are used you have explicit labeling.
> If WCAG 2.0 disallows this I'd be very surprised and would
> lobby against this, since it works and also has benefits
> for styling forms (applying css rules to the label element
> such as label {display:block;} )
> 
> AWK
> 
> > In researching, I found the WCAG 2.0 documentation -
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-
> 20050630/#label
> >   - that again states that explicit labeling should
> always be present.
> > Great! It also states that implicit association is
> deprecated
> > and should NOT be used. So if my interpretation is
> correct,
> > then a construct like the following is not allowed in
> WCAG 2.0:
> >
> > <label for="firstname">First Name
> > <input type="text" id="firstname">
> > </label>
> >
> > In looking at the examples, it would appear this is
> implicit
> > labeling and as such is deprecated and shouldn't be
> used. I'm
> > just wondering if others have the same interpretation
> and if
> > they think this is correct or not. This is method that
> is
> > prescribed by loads of accessibility sites.
> > It is also what was originally required by WCAG 1.0. So,
> > either the WCAG 2.0 documentation needs to be changed or
> else
> > we need to stop using this method. Or maybe I'm missing
> something.
> >
> > Jared Smith
> > WebAIM.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > To manage your subscription, visit
> http://list.webaim.org/
> > Address list messages to webaim-forum@list.webaim.org
> >

Received on Monday, 21 August 2006 17:42:42 UTC