Re: Do buttons need to follow 2.4.4 or 2.4.6?

Although links have their own technique regarding descriptive text, such a
technique for buttons seems to be absent. Considering this absence, however,
4.1.2 does, in my opinion, address the issue by implication. When one uses
nondescriptive text for an button, the result is an inherent and complete
lack of programmatic determination for the name property (since an erroneous
name is tantamount to an absent one), thus failing the success criterion.

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:36 PM, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>wrote:

> 4.1.2 addresses the technical "how". It does not address the quality of the
> text which is addressed for other control types by 2.4.4 or 2.4.6
> respectively.
>
> On Aug 2, 2011, at 12:49 AM, adam solomon wrote:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20101014/H91 would seem to
> indicate that it is a problem of 4.1.2. You have brought up a good point -
> 2.4.4 speaks specifically about links, not buttons, though the spirit of it
> could certainly pertain to buttons. We should really clarify this point and
> decide if that flash technique is really in the right place.
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:51 AM, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>wrote:
>
>> Button labels (whether from the text of the button element or the value of
>> button input elements) don't seem to fit into either 2.4.4 (link purpose in
>> context) or 2.4.6 (Headings and Labels).
>>
>> Does the button text need to fully identify the purpose of the button (for
>> example when buttons are repeated on multiple rows of a table to perform an
>> action on the row) or is it sufficient for the button to identify the
>> purpose within the context of the correctly marked up row header?
>>
>> Note that FLASH27 (FLASH27: Providing button labels that describe the
>> purpose of a button ) is explicitly stated as being a sufficient technique
>> for 2.4.4. Can I extend this to imply that HTML buttons are covered by 2.4.4
>> too?
>>
>> Regards,
>> James
>>
>
>
>