W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2006

RE: Use of pre-compilated text-fields in forms

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 10:05:20 -0700
Message-ID: <53744A0A1D995C459E975F971E17F56490C1C4@namail4.corp.adobe.com>
To: "David Poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

David,
I can't think of any specific assistive technologies that don't do this,
but you said that you are thinking about certain tools that don't
support the identification of edit fields or that require pre-filling
the value to make the use clear.  Can you name some of the tools you're
thinking of?

Thanks,
AWK 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Poehlman
> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 7:23 AM
> To: Alastair Campbell
> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Use of pre-compilated text-fields in forms
> 
> 
> sorry, message was sent beffore done.
> 
> It is my understanding that valid html at some level for 
> accessibility is to use text in the forms.  It's broader than 
> a bbraille and not braille issue.  Now, if I could gett my 
> user agent to mark the fields with text for me so that my 
> small screen would recognize or my audio or braille output 
> device, we could retire this checkpoint with gusto.  This 
> gets complicated though and I'm thinking of the still rather 
> large numbers of people using technology which simply does 
> not recognize or report to the user an edit field.  Just 
> because a user agent or user agent at combination or two 
> does, does not mean the issue is solved.
> 
> On May 9, 2006, at 7:11 AM, Alastair Campbell wrote:
> 
> 
> > Puting in an x or a word or two which if left in would return an 
> > invalid entry message would be the solution.
> 
> So people enter 5x instead? (For example.)
> 
> I don't consider that a good solution, as people then have to 
> go through the form again.
> 
> We have a conflict here of people using screen readers versus 
> people on Braille displays. (There are probably exceptions on 
> both sides, but in general there isn't a clear solution.)
> 
> When you have this, surely the best/easiest option for the 
> general populace should win out? In that way even sites which 
> have no regard for accessibility aren't tripping up on this 
> checkpoint, and everyone is following the same (defacto) method.
> 
> I just don't see the advantage for anyone in catering for a 
> user agent that doesn't understand basic HTML.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> -Alastair
> 
> --
> Alastair Campbell         |  Director of User Experience
> 
> Nomensa Email Disclaimer:
> http://www.nomensa.com/email-disclaimer.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 17:05:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:24 GMT