Re: Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists.

On 02/05/2016 14:33, ALAN SMITH wrote:
> 2)To your statement that “Not all checkboxes/radio buttons *need* a
> grouping label”  I would say that of the hundreds of  radio button and
> checkbox sets/groups that I have seen they all “did need” this grouping
> label to understand what is being asked of the user.

Starter for one: the various "I have read and accept the terms and 
conditions" type checkboxes in most shopping/purchasing workflows? The 
related "I would like you not to spam me to death / No don't put me on 
your perennial mailing list" radio buttons?

> Whether the there
> is a lack of legend/fieldset or aria-describedby, or other means, if
> some relationship is not there so that it is announced upon focus to the
> items the automated tools should find and flag it. Or at least flag it
> as something to manually checked.

Agree with that last part - tools should generally warn that they're not 
infallible.

> 3)I intentionally sent this to all on the chain as David had used the
> words so eloquently “It was an information and relationship that was
> visual but not perceivable to blind people except by exploring around
> and guessing.” I wanted as much feedback as possible as this is an
> important item that I see a gap in WCAG 2.0.

Sure, but when all the recipients are members of the mailing list, it 
results in doublers (e.g. for the lengthy "let's add a date" thread I've 
been consistently getting the same email twice since I fired off my 
first reply to the thread) :)

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Monday, 2 May 2016 15:18:38 UTC