W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2011

RE: Question re: WCAG2.0, Requirement 3.3.2

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:40:19 -0400
Message-ID: <df6a36f21b1395facb36542ffc56d74e@mail.gmail.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
In our platform we indicate things like this as “guided automatic” results
that flag issues for review by the tester but that if not failed during
reviewed do not appear as violations.  Testing for certain techniques can be
clues as to potential violations and thus can be helpful for tools and
platforms to flag for review.



Jonathan



*From:* w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] *On
Behalf Of *Gregg Vanderheiden
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:32 AM
*To:* Phil Evans
*Cc:* Charles McCathieNevile; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
*Subject:* Re: Question re: WCAG2.0, Requirement 3.3.2



please also pass on to them that TECHNIQUES are never required.



We have a number of tool developers who are looking for anything testable
and are including all sorts of techniques (advisory or regular) as tests for
WCAG conformance.



These techniques are just that - techniques.   If they want to test for the
technique use -- that is fine but they cannot and should not say that any
technique is required.



*Gregg*

--------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison


Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net















On Jun 15, 2011, at 6:56 AM, Phil Evans wrote:



Hi,

Thanks to both of you, yes, this helps a lot. I did seem complete overkill
to be requiring a specific order for form elements like this!

I will pass this information on to the developers of "total validator" (
http://www.totalvalidator.com/) since it was their tool that flagged this
positioning situation as an error (I miss Bobby!)

And I will relax in the knowledge that my pages are in fact meeting the WCAG
requirement I was aiming for!

Thanks again,

Phil

On 15/06/11 12:53, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

Charles is correct. There is no requirement that the labels be in any

place. the ONLY requirement is the Success Criteria.







Techniques are NEVER requirements. They are just one technique. If they

are specified in the understanding document as "WG feels they are

sufficient" it means just that. The working group feels that this

TECHNIQUE is sufficient to meet the Success Criteria (or some part of

it) as specified.

- it does NOT mean that it is the ONLY way to meet the SC

- therefore it can NEVER mean that it is required.

It also does NOT mean that there are no other ways to meet the SC. There

may be other ways - ways that are not listed in any of the techniques.

In fact the working group is continually developing and reviewing

techniques sent in by others and adding them to the techniques document.

There will be a revisions released soon adding scores of new techniques.





NOTE: that the test at the end of the technique is a test of whether the

TECHNIQUE AS WRITTEN has been met. But the technique is not required to

meet the SC. it is only one known and recognized way to meet the SC.



The ONLY things that are required are the Success Criteria.



Does this help?





/Gregg/

--------------------------------------------------------

Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.

Director Trace R&D Center

Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering

and Biomedical Engineering

University of Wisconsin-Madison



Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International

and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project

http://Raisingthefloor.org --- http://GPII.net

















On Jun 15, 2011, at 2:33 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:



Hi Phil,



On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:01:11 +0200, Phil Evans <pae9@star.le.ac.uk

<mailto:pae9@star.le.ac.uk <pae9@star.le.ac.uk>>> wrote:

...

"3.3.2 Labels or Instructions: Labels or instructions are provided

when content requires user input. (Level A) "



This seems straightforward enough. However, following via the link

"How to meet 3.3.2" leads to the page:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20101014/H44



which includes the line, 'Note that the label is positioned after

input elements of type="checkbox" and type="radio".'



It is not clear to me whether this is a *requirement* or not

(although the validator I am using assumes it is). That is, is the

following part of a form OK or not?



The text is part of an old requirement (written when implementation of

<label> wasn't very good) which called for *consistent* placement of

labels in relation to controls, and suggested that the *common*

pattern for checkboxes was to place text after them.



While you should certainly ensure that you layout is consistent, I

don't think you need to worry so much whether your labels are

typically before or after the thing they are labeling (so long as they

have proper markup they are likely to be useful in most modern software).



IMHO, of course



cheers



Chaals



--

Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group

je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk

http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com






-- 
-------------------------

Phil Evans,
Swift Development Scientist
X-ray and Observational Astronomy Group,
University of Leicester

Tel: +44 (0)116 252 5059
Mobile: +44 (0)7780 980240
pae9@star.le.ac.uk
http://www.star.le.ac.uk/~pae9
http://www.swift.ac.uk

Follow me as a Swift scientist on Twitter: @swift_phil
http://www.star.le.ac.uk/~pae9/twitter
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2011 14:43:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:36 GMT