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

RE: [w3c-wai-ig] <none>

From: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:39:13 +0800
To: Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo <coordina@sidar.org>, "'Jonathan Avila'" <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8AFA77741B11DB47B24131F1E38227A9914FAED4C7@XCHG-MS1.ads.ecu.edu.au>
Hi all

I totally agree with Emanuelle - let's try to be as inclusive as possible.  After all, we are after 'best practice'.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around scoring for this label question when I'm doing quantitative analysis using a WCAG 2.0 checklist.

Let's try to understand this:
If a form, such as a search box, has no label, or title then it fails 1.3.1 (ST H44)., 2.4.6, 3.3.2.  and 4.1.2 (because the connection (which isn't there) is not programatically determinable)
If it has a title, I've been following this discussion and it would seem to pass 1.3.1. as H65 uses title attribute as a ST
but...
If there is a label and it's not programatically determinable ("label for"), then it passes 2.4.6. (ST G131),  and 3.3.2. (ST H44) but not 1.3.1. or 4.1.2.
Also, if there is a title only, then it would fail 4.1.2. as the title relationship to the form is not programatically determinable.

Is that right, or have I missed something here?  I'm always open to correction.




Regards

Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons)
PhD Candidate & Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A.
Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
v.conway@ecu.edu.au
v.conway@webkeyit.com
Mob: 0415 383 673

This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by return email or telephone and destroy the original message.
________________________________________
From: Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo [coordina@sidar.org]
Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011 10:09 AM
To: 'Jonathan Avila'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: [w3c-wai-ig] <none>

Hi Jonathan and all,

I feel that is not a "conservative view" but an "inclusive" view.
Accessibility is for all.

All the best,
Emmanuelle

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo
Directora de la Fundación Sidar
Coordinadora del Seminario SIDAR
www.sidar.org
email: coordina@sidar.org / emmanuelle@sidar.org



-----Mensaje original-----
De: Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com]
Enviado el: martes, 13 de diciembre de 2011 1:36
Para: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Asunto: RE: [w3c-wai-ig] <none>

[Ramon wrote] Ok, Let's say that you are a keyboard-only, sighted user. You
get to a form to edit contact information, with fields for "fixed phone",
"mobile phone" and "fax". Since you are editing existing data, the
placeholder text is not there, so there is no visual label.

I agree - a conservative view would indicate a visual label that is always
present or that is keyboard accessibly displayed would need to be present to
meet 3.3.2.

Jonathan

This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose or use the information contained within. If you have received it in error please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and delete any record of it from your system. The information contained within is not the opinion of Edith Cowan University in general and the University accepts no liability for the accuracy of the information provided.

CRICOS IPC 00279B
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 02:39:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 13 December 2011 02:40:01 GMT