- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:42:22 -0700
- To: <public-wcag-teamc@w3.org>
Do we consider this a sufficient technique? > From: Andrew Kirkpatrick > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 9:59 AM > To: WebAIM Discussion List > Subject: RE: [WebAIM] WCAG and form labels > > Jared, > Your example below is explicitly labeled. I've always > thought that if you wrap a label around a control that it > sould count as explicit, but it doesn't unless the for/id > are used. When they are used you have explicit labeling. > If WCAG 2.0 disallows this I'd be very surprised and would > lobby against this, since it works and also has benefits > for styling forms (applying css rules to the label element > such as label {display:block;} ) > > AWK > > > In researching, I found the WCAG 2.0 documentation - > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS- > 20050630/#label > > - that again states that explicit labeling should > always be present. > > Great! It also states that implicit association is > deprecated > > and should NOT be used. So if my interpretation is > correct, > > then a construct like the following is not allowed in > WCAG 2.0: > > > > <label for="firstname">First Name > > <input type="text" id="firstname"> > > </label> > > > > In looking at the examples, it would appear this is > implicit > > labeling and as such is deprecated and shouldn't be > used. I'm > > just wondering if others have the same interpretation > and if > > they think this is correct or not. This is method that > is > > prescribed by loads of accessibility sites. > > It is also what was originally required by WCAG 1.0. So, > > either the WCAG 2.0 documentation needs to be changed or > else > > we need to stop using this method. Or maybe I'm missing > something. > > > > Jared Smith > > WebAIM.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To manage your subscription, visit > http://list.webaim.org/ > > Address list messages to webaim-forum@list.webaim.org > >
Received on Monday, 21 August 2006 17:42:42 UTC