W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: Are visible labels required per WCAG 2.0?

From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 17:26:20 -0600
Message-Id: <201603232326.u2NNQQZa003646@d03av04.boulder.ibm.com>
To: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Cc: W3C WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>>  Sailesh wrote: . . . 
>> The table summary attribute or off-screen labels are specifically
>> meant to help the VI user only. Making these visible  is not needed
>> for the sighted user and may not even suit the visual UI design. So it
>> is not a BP.

hmm, VI only? Summaries and labels are needed by sighted users who have 
other disabilities, including cognitive disabilities.  Presenting 
summaries in search engine results is also a side benefit (or perhaps a 
business justification beyond accessibility compliance.  User with 
Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) and the aging would also benefit from 
summaries before deciding to "open up" and "drill down" into details. So, 
it is not only for the vision impaired. 

WCAG 1.1.1 actually mentions this benefit:

Specific Benefits of Success Criterion 1.1.1
Text alternatives may help some people who have difficulty understanding 
the meaning of photographs, drawings, and other images (e.g., line 
drawings, graphic designs, paintings, three-dimensional representations), 
graphs, charts, animations, etc. 

Also, as mentioned about UAAG 2.0, these summaries and labels should be 
made available by browsers to end users.  Training end users who have 
cognitive disabilities or are aging, and helping them configure their 
browsers to render these summaries and labels is another matter.
Phill Jenkins, 
Accessibility Business Development Executive
IBM Research - IBM Accessibility

From:   Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
To:     Phill Jenkins/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, W3C WAI Interest Group 
Cc:     Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Date:   03/23/2016 09:49 AM
Subject:        Re: Are visible labels required per WCAG 2.0?

>>I even advocate as a best practice that most any and all information 
perceivable to an assistive technology user should be made visible to 
sighted users too.
When content is developed, content authors have the option to make
whatever they  wish to be visible. Obviously, if it is generally
useful  and suits the design they will do so.
Then it is a matter of general usability.
For multi-segment fields with a label on the left or form controls in
a table, there are enough visual cues  for sighted user to decipher
the purpose of the controls.
Yes this may be screen size specific and authors need to  assess these
for different platforms else something that is usable on a laptop may
not be so on smaller devices etc.
The table summary attribute or off-screen labels are specifically
meant to help the VI user only. Making these visible  is not needed
for the sighted user and may not even suit the visual UI design. So it
is not a BP.
BTW  I am presenting on Accessibility Best Practices - What it is and
what it is not on Fri 03/25 3.20 pm at CSUN.

Note: H44 explains that visible labels are needed for 3.3.2.
Also the placeholder text is not a substitute for a label say the
specs though it may work like a label when no input data is entered.
Thanks and best wishes,

On 3/22/16, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
> Phil, SC 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions requires that all input has a 
label or
> instructions.  Labels can be in the form of images labels can be applied 
> fields as a group such as a 3 part phone number field.  But they have to 
> there.  The definition of label in WCAG is defined as being always 
> to all users.
> As for tables and non-input elements it is not as clear.
> Jonathan
> From: Phill Jenkins [mailto:pjenkins@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 6:12 PM
> To: W3C WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Are visible labels required per WCAG 2.0?
> I'm starting this thread because I believe there is a need for 
> information by all users, including those  who are sighted but may have
> vision impairments, reading impairments, cognitive impairments, aging, 
> are learning about new content or a new application.
> There are differing opinions and interpretations on whether visible 
> are required by WCAG 2.0 on things like form elements, row and column
> headings, and interactive elements (widgets). Often the argument is made
> that when such relationships and labels are visible to one set of 
> users, that those relationships and labels can be made to be perceivable 
> assistive technology users as well, but not the other way around.  I 
> advocate as a best practice that most any and all information 
perceivable to
> an assistive technology user should be made visible to sighted users 
> Some common interactive elements or widgets can sometimes be an 
> for example:
>         1. do all carousel widgets need a visible label?
>         2. do all expandable/collapsable tree widgets need a visible 
>         3. Once you know what the widget is, do you really want to 
> up the visible display with labels?
> Some rows and columns in a data table can sometimes be an exception, for
> example: columns in data tables have an implied heading, or a row has no 
> heading (or only one that is implied) because of the type of information 
> that column or row. A column with just dates may have an implied heading 
> "Date", but no visible heading.
> Some form controls can sometimes have an implied label, for example when
> there are 5 radio buttons in a series, with the 1st one labeled Strongly
> Agree, the last one labeled Strongly Disagree One, the middle radio 
> visible labeled "Neutral", but the 2nd and 4th radio buttons are not 
> labeled because of limited space.
> Many subject matter experts interpret WCAG as not requiring a visible 
> on all form elements, row and column headings, or all interactive 
> because many interpret the following from WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria:
> 1.3.3 Info and Relationships says that when a label is presented 
> that it also be programmatically determined, but not that is has to be
> presented visibly.
> 2.4.2 Page Titleddoes require a page title, and it implies that they be
> "perceivable" to all users when it says: "this success criterion 
> all users in allowing users to quickly and easily identify whether the
> information contained in the Web page is relevant to their needs."
> 2.4.6 Headings and Labels does not require headings or labels. This 
> criterion requires that if headings or labels are provided, they be
> descriptive. ('descriptive' is subjective, which is one reason its level
> AA). Also note that, if headings or labels are provided, they must meet
> 1.3.1.
> 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value says that the name has to be programmatically
> determined - not that it has to be visible.
> WCAG References and links:
> 1.3.1<
> and Relationships: Information,
> structure<
> and
> relationships<
> through
> presentation<
> be programmatically
> determined<
> or are available in text. (Level A)
> 2.4.2<
> Titled: Web
> pages<
> have titles that describe topic or purpose. (Level A)
> 2.4.6<
> and Labels: Headings and
> labels<
> topic or purpose. (Level AA)
> 4.1.2<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#ensure-compat-rsv
> Role, Value: For all user interface
> components<
> (including but not limited to: form elements, links and components 
> by scripts), the
> name<
> role<
> be programmatically
> determined<
> states, properties, and values that can be set by the user can be
> programmatically
> set<
> and notification of changes to these items is available to user
> agents<
> including assistive
> technologies<
> (Level A)
> Note: This success criterion is primarily for Web authors who develop or
> script their own user interface components. For example, standard HTML
> controls already meet this success criterion when used according to
> specification.
> UAAG 1.0 did have Guideline 2 "Ensure that users have access to all 
> notably conditional
> content<
> that may have been provided to meet the requirements of the [WCAG]
> UAAG 2.0 Draft does not seem to have a success criteria to render the
> invisible labels that were added to meet success criteria.
> Is there a gap in the requirements between WCAG and UAAG that
> disproportionately affect sighted users with cognitive disabilities?
> Does anyone have a difffering opinon or interpretation of WCAG 2.0. 
> to me that for better visual preceivability, better cognitive 
> and better interactive expereince that everyone, including those using
> unaided browsers should be able to determine the label of the form 
> column or row heading, and label of the interactive elements (software
> widgets)?
> ___________
> Regards,
> Phill Jenkins,
> Accessibility Business Development Executive
> IBM Research - IBM Accessibility
> ibm.com/able<http://www.ibm.com/able>
> facebook.com/IBMAccessibility<http://www.facebook.com/IBMAccessibility>
> twitter.com/IBMAccess<http://twitter.com/IBMAccess>
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2016 23:27:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 23 March 2016 23:27:02 UTC