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

RE: lc-2954

From: Boland Jr, Frederick E. <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 18:13:29 +0000
To: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, "rcorominas@technosite.es" <rcorominas@technosite.es>, "adam.solomon2@gmail.com" <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>
CC: 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, 'James Nurthen' <james.nurthen@oracle.com>, 'Joshue O Connor' <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Message-ID: <87b5d1add02748d1aba5e4fad37e3148@BN1PR09MB0258.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Agree.

From: Mike Elledge [mailto:melledge@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 2:05 PM
To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL; rcorominas@technosite.es; adam.solomon2@gmail.com
Cc: 'WCAG'; 'James Nurthen'; 'Joshue O Connor'
Subject: Re: lc-2954

I would think it would be necessary to have a programmatically-determinable label even if there's subsequent radio buttons to provide context for sighted users. Someone unable to see the page would seem to be at a much greater disadvantage without one.

On Monday, October 6, 2014 1:34 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile |
Office: 703-371-5545

-----Original Message-----
From: Ramón Corominas [mailto:rcorominas@technosite.es<mailto:rcorominas@technosite.es>]
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2014 12:59 PM
To: adam.solomon2@gmail.com<mailto: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 18:13:58 UTC

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