Re: Problem with definition of "label" linked in SC 2.4.12

David,
That statement was talking about the text input part rather than the go button

Andrew Kirkpatrick


On Sep 29, 2017, at 8:51 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> wrote:

>>  <form><input type=“text” aria-label=“search”/><input type=“image” src=“go.jpg”/></form>

​> ​
I
​​
would say that this would pass 4.1.2 for the text input but 2.4.12 wouldn’t apply since there is no visible label (at least in my example)

​Isn't the section input in this example a visible label? It should fail the new SC, because the Dragon user will say "click go" and nothing will happen.​



Cheers,
David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1f9515efb9a34c9c401308d5079d6998%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636423295019636846&sdata=XSJPmRK30aRS8e%2FVsq%2FQ9OEb3JLCTipMkMxwxWh2%2Fe0%3D&reserved=0>

twitter.com/davidmacd<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1f9515efb9a34c9c401308d5079d6998%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636423295019636846&sdata=5EN2phBRByRbY2phugsOBm7Y81F5zpKfsT6PDVVGmfQ%3D&reserved=0>

GitHub<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1f9515efb9a34c9c401308d5079d6998%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636423295019636846&sdata=X%2BFLE9SA2b1g5iayTfl9cslUvpZvr2yVIkQt%2B6GWCxM%3D&reserved=0>

www.Can-Adapt.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1f9515efb9a34c9c401308d5079d6998%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636423295019636846&sdata=rkZiDvRl7heTxmom18lS85sXZLfvXJ76weGnryONlTw%3D&reserved=0>



  Adapting the web to all users

            Including those with disabilities

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1f9515efb9a34c9c401308d5079d6998%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636423295019636846&sdata=hm4mS9b0ebwlA98TWhK%2BmIBZhoiw82U0iyxn32eNWx0%3D&reserved=0>

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:
Brooks,
I separated this comment out from the CFC thread at Andrews request, but I do think it is relevant to the discussion of the language used in SC 2.4.12.

Thank you!

I’m not OK with the definition of “labels” we are linking to in the text of SC 2.4.12<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Faccessible-name-terminology-sync%2Fguidelines%2F%23label-in-name&data=02%7C01%7C%7C327754c7801c4b4de84f08d507676cc0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636423063155253291&sdata=1KuBJV0%2F%2BYVBgHnz0rD77X3Ou3UlvS11CJgypeEgQrM%3D&reserved=0>.

This definition is unchanged from WCAG 2.0, and the group’s intention was to not change it.

If you go back to David’s basic example of an inline “Go” graphic without alt text next to a search input with aria-label text of “Search,” we’ve got a situation that passes SC 2.4.12 because there is no “component with a text alternative.”
David’s example scenario code:
<img src="go.jpg"><input aria-label="search" ...>
Want to pass S.C. 2.4.12 and still have a fundamental disconnect between what’s visible onscreen and what’s announced by AT as the “name” of the “user interface component,” just leave out the alt text!  The go.jpg graphic in David’s example doesn’t have a text alternative, and under the definition of “label” we are using, shouldn’t be considered part of the label.

I’m not clear on what this code is showing. Is this “go” image a submit button? (it is hard to tell since there is so little context).

If this is trying to show something like:
<form><input type=“text” aria-label=“search”/><input type=“image” src=“go.jpg”/></form>

I would say that this would pass 4.1.2 for the text input but 2.4.12 wouldn’t apply since there is no visible label (at least in my example)
I would also say that the image would fail 4.1.2 and 2.4.12 – 4.1.2 because it is a control with no name and 2.4.12 because the visible label can’t match the programmatic name since there isn’t one defined. If the image had alt=“go” then it would pass both.

What would happen in the “Go” graphic were implemented into the page via CSS, which has no direct means of apply alternate text?
<span class=”go-graphic-via-css”></span><input aria-label="search" ...>
In my opinion, the definition of “labels” needs to be adjusted to make it clear that images of text, whether they have alternative text or not, should be considered part of a label.

Interesting, I see the issue. I’m going to look back at some of the past responses from the group to see if this has come up.

Thanks,
AWK

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·