W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2014

Re: lc-2954

From: Adam Solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 20:53:22 +0300
Message-ID: <CALKv3=hEQvdhN3rPtS=LbhRL1sGzG5hE3AbHtS=NqSE2fHJ_pw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: rcorominas@technosite.es, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Just to clarify, the first words of my comment: "there is no failure for
4.1.2 in a case..." *did not mean that such a case would not fail*, *but
rather that there currently is no failure technique* in such a case for
4.1.2, and if the group felt there should be.

In any event that comment was sent by me before the last group meeting and
we have new suggestions for this issue, including Andrew's proposed failure
technique

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ramon,
>
> My thinking exactly!
>
>
>
> * katie *
>
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
>
> Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile |
> Office: 703-371-5545
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ramón Corominas [mailto:rcorominas@technosite.es]
> Sent: Monday, October 6, 2014 12:59 PM
> To: adam.solomon2@gmail.com
> Cc: WCAG; James Nurthen; Joshue O Connor
> Subject: Re: lc-2954
>
> Adam wrote:
>
>  > -there is no failure for 4.1.2 in a case  > where there is no visible
> label and no  > programmatic label, i.e. in a case where  > there is a
> control with no label whatsoever  > (as can happen with a select where the
> items  > in the select list give the user an idea what  > to choose from).
> If the group feels that this  > is in fact a failure, then would it be
> possible  > to include such a failure of 4.1.2 in F68 (in  > which case we
> would need to split the test  > procedure between visible labels and cases
> > where there is no label at all, and instances  > where only 4.1.2 is
> violated to instances  > where 1.3.1 is also violated). Or, is this  > use
> case not a failure at all, since all  > users are at the same disadvantage
> when  > no visible label is provided.
>
>
> I've always understood that a programmatically determinable name is
> required
> as per 1.1.1 and 4.1.2:
>
>
> "- Controls, Input: If non-text content is a control or accepts user
> input, then it has a name that describes its purpose. (Refer to
> Guideline 4.1 for additional requirements for controls and content that
> accepts user input.)"
>
> I don't think that we can accept the contents of the field as an
> "implicit" label, it sounds to me like saying that the file name of a
> JPG can be used as the alternative text for an image.
>
> Cheers,
> Ramón.
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 6 October 2014 17:53:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:16 UTC