Re: CfC: Issue 122

Agree with Laura. (and thanks to Paul for bringing it up). We should revisit the issue in an extension. 
Detlev

Sent from phone

Sent from phone

> Am 11.12.2015 um 17:59 schrieb Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>:
> 
> +1
> 
> If I had been around at the time, I would have certainly voted for
> requiring WCAG 2.0 to require that check boxes and radio buttons have
> clickable labels. It is a pity that it doesn't. Revisiting this in an
> extension spec and WCAG.next is a good idea.
> 
> Kindest Regards,
> Laura
> 
>> On 12/11/15, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
>> CALL FOR CONSENSUS – ends Tuesday December 15 at 11:30am Boston time.
>> 
>> Related to Issue 122 in GitHub[1] we believe that the discussion has
>> wide-ranging and productive, but at this point think that we have heard all
>> of the arguments [2][3] and that a consensus opinion has emerged.
>> 
>> The specific question in the GitHub issue is "Please clarify that WCAG's
>> Info & Relationships SC requires that checkboxes and radio buttons have
>> clickable labels, i.e. programmatic "relationship" associations and a title
>> alone will not suffice”
>> 
>> The proposed consensus view is that WCAG 2.0 does not require that
>> checkboxes and radio buttons have clickable labels.  The Working Group
>> agrees that there is utility for end users when the labels for these (and
>> other) controls are clickable, but there are no success criteria that make
>> this specific requirement.
>> 
>> Related to this question is whether the page content used as the visible
>> label for the control (in order to meet SC 3.3.2) must be explicitly
>> associated with the control that is being labeled. The proposed consensus
>> view is that the relationship between a control and the content used to
>> label that control may be made implicitly as well as explicitly, and what
>> will really dictate whether SC 1.3.1 (as well as SC 4.1.2) is met is whether
>> the assistive technologies used in the site’s conformance claim are able to
>> provide support for the implicit or explicit relationships provided in the
>> markup. An explicit markup relationship (e.g. Using the HTML for and id
>> attributes to make the association or by enclosing the input within the
>> label element) is preferred as it will increase the likelihood that user
>> agents will support the design pattern and will simplify testing, but
>> implicit relationships may also be supported and as a result may satisfy
>> WCAG 2.0 success criteria.
>> 
>> The working group agrees that there is benefit to many users when they can
>> click on a larger area for a checkbox or radio button and on some user
>> agents using the label element in conjunction with an input can make this
>> happen without any work by the page author.  Despite the benefit, this was
>> not part of the original intent of WCAG 2.0, so the working group will
>> forward this issue to the task forces that are currently working on
>> extensions for WCAG 2.0 for review as a topic for consideration within an
>> extension. In addition, this issue will be added to the “Post WCAG 2.0” wiki
>> page[4] for issues that the group wants to keep a record of for
>> consideration in future versions of WCAG.
>> 
>> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not
>> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being
>> able to live with” this position, please let the group know before the CfC
>> deadline.
>> 
>> [1] https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/122
>> [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015OctDec/0193.html
>> [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015OctDec/0225.html
>> [4] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Post_WCAG_2_Issues_Sorted
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> AWK
>> 
>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>> Adobe
>> 
>> akirkpat@adobe.com
>> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>> http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
> 
> 
> -- 
> Laura L. Carlson

Received on Saturday, 12 December 2015 20:06:29 UTC