- From: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
- To: james nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hello James, The third issue about the checkbox: Before the example, there is a paragraph which explains why the checkbox needs a specific identifier. The 'check to compare' serves little or no purpose, I'd say even visually, but it is part of the UI. But I'll reiterate as a VI user that It is text that can be safely be ignored by AT to avoid cluttering verbosity. So I believe the aria-labelledby markup is good as is. Agree? Ref: http://mars.dequecloud.com/demo/form-markup.htm#tech9 About role=group write-up: What I have already submitted is a specific technique for grouping related form controls generally usable when one is constrained by design to use fieldset-legend technique. So please review / discuss and consider for incorporating into techniques. As I wrote it, it will be good if others can comment. Also review other changes / comments : See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2-techs/2013May/ http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2-techs/2013Aug/0000.html Thanks, Sailesh -------------------------------------------- On Wed, 9/11/13, james nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com> wrote: Subject: Re: Aria-labelledby for form controls- examples To: "Sailesh Panchang" <spanchang02@yahoo.com> Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2013, 1:17 PM On 9/11/2013 7:52 AM, Sailesh Panchang wrote: > On 9/10/2013 > 7:54 AM, Sailesh Panchang > wrote: > Please review: > Aria-labelledby for form controls > http://mars.dequecloud.com/demo/form-markup.htm#tech5 > JN: I believe this is no different from http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Using_aria-labelledby_to_concatenate_a_label_from_several_text_nodes#Example_2:_A_simple_data_table_with_text_inputs > Is there anything I am missing that the example in the > current technique doesn't have? > Sailesh 09/11: > The survey page for 'aria-labelledby for controls' had no techniques. It was marked 'TDB'. > That's why I sent these examples. > If there were examples already available, they should have been on that survey page, no? JN 9/11: This title of this technique is misleading and needs fixing. This is an aria-labelledby technique intended at 1.1.1 As such labels for form fields are not appropriate. We have other techniques for labeling form fields. > > http://mars.dequecloud.com/demo/form-markup.htm#tech7 > JN: We certainly need a role=group technique to cover > this use case. > Would someone like to volunteer to write this? > Sailesh 09/11: > There's one already submitted in May 2013. > I had submitted a few techniques including one for the role=group as an alternative for fieldset-legend > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2-techs/2013May/ > There's a problem with the technique submission form which I had conveyed to Andrew and code had not got submitted alright. > So a Word doc was sent to Andrew with my recent submissions / comments a few weeks ago. See attached. > A few times, I requested that these be reviewed. JN 9/11: I haven't seen this and it certainly hasn't been passed to the task force for consideration. When I get time I will try to add this to the wiki so it can be worked a little more by the TF (or you can do this yourself if you want) > http://mars.dequecloud.com/demo/form-markup.htm#tech9 > JN: I think this example needs modification and then > could fit nicely into the Using aria-labelledby to concatencate multiple text nodes > case. > As it stands there is no indication to AT that checking > the checkbox does a compare operation so the labelledby needs to > point to the header and the checkbox label and not just the header. > Sailesh 09/11: > Well the aria-labelledby works fine for the checkbox and conveys its purpose clearly. JN 9/11: The label on its own could be to buy the item or indeed any other usage. The label needs to include this. I do not think the functionality of the checkbox is clear without this. > There is also an explicit label 'check to compare' which is read when one arrows down (out of forms mode). JN 9/11: I'm not sure we can rely on this - of we could our lives would be much easier. How about a compromise where the check to compare is the aria-descibedby reference? > Certainly instruction that you can compare 2 or 4 items will be conveyed somewhere at the start / end of the form. JN 9/11: If this is the case then this should be in the example. > That does not have to be conveyed by every checkbox. > Based on your argument, every form control's label needs to convey which form it belongs to and what will be accomplished by submitting the form. JN 9/11: this is not an equivalent argument. The visually associated label for the checkbox is "Check to compare". Not providing this to AT is a clear violation of 1.3.1. > i.e. on a login form the label for username will need to convey that it will be submitted as part of the login process. > If every checkbox were to convey that once checked it will be used for comparison, that will be a lot of verbosity and a lot of problem. > When you have a list of emails displayed on a Web page, one can check them and delete or move or mark as spam etc. The checkbox's label does not convey this. JN 9/11: Here there is not a visually associated label. If it is important for a sighted user to have the "check to compare" text then this should be provided for a screen reader user too. If this is not important then the text need not be provided to anyone. Regards, James > Thanks and regards, > Sailesh > Regards, > James > Secondly in the matter of aria-labelledby for non text > content: > - The first example has no alt > - The second one: seldom is there text taht says '4 out > of 5' for *rating it is only the image. > But, yes, the example is a good one if it is indeed marked > up that way with multiple star images and text alongside. > About use of role=headings: > It appears it is more of a remediation technique to be used > only when HTML h<n> cannot be used like for h7 as > illustrated? > Need to think of more used cases I guess. > Thanks, > Sailesh
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 16:16:31 UTC