W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2015

Re: H65 updates

From: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 05:22:52 -0700
Message-ID: <1434111772.95953.YahooMailBasic@web122102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, Christophe Strobbe <strobbe@hdm-stuttgart.de>
Indeed it is an abuse.
Title is okay for forms with a single search box or phone# type (multipart) fields. 
In such cases, one sort of turns a blind eye towards SC 3.3.2.
It is ok for SC 4.1.2 for assigning a name to a field but not as a replacement for a label in a form with several  fields.
H65 should not be deleted but it needs to clarify usage.
Also the specs clearly say placeholder is not a substitutefor a label.
Thanks,
Sailesh


--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 6/12/15, Christophe Strobbe <strobbe@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:

 Subject: Re: H65 updates
 To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
 Date: Friday, June 12, 2015, 6:40 AM
 
 Hi,
 
 Detlev is right. H65 was specifically created for cases
 where " the
 visual design cannot accommodate the label" (as the
 description says).
 If H65 is deleted, HTML forms can only meet SC 3.3.2 using
 visible
 labels. We should think about other ways to prevent abuse of
 H65 before
 removing it.
 
 Best regards,
 
 Christophe
 
 On 12/06/2015 9:36, Detlev Fischer wrote:
 > I don"t quite see the point in removing the reference
 to 3.3.2 (labels or instructions) in H65 because that is
 exactly the Success Criterion that the technique relates to.
 The critical bit is the qualification in H65  "when the
 label element cannot be used". On longer forms (as pointed
 out by Paul) it is perfectly possible to use visible labels,
 so H65 does not qualify. Still, there are contexts where H65
 will meet SC 3.3.2 so the reference should stay in place.
 >
 > Detlev
 >
 > On 12 Jun 2015, at 06:03, james.nurthen@oracle.com
 wrote:
 >
 >> I agree. h65 is valid but doesn't let you meet
 3.3.2 by itself.  
 >>
 >> On Jun 11, 2015, at 8:04 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
 wrote:
 >>
 >>> We need to consider removing the reference to
 SC 3.3.2 from H65.
 >>>  
 >>> See this article
 >>> http://pauljadam.com/demos/wcagh65invalid.html
 >>>  
 >>> H65
 >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H65.html
 >>>  
 >>> Jonathan
 >>>  
 >>> -- 
 >>> Jonathan Avila
 >>> Chief Accessibility Officer
 >>> SSB BART Group 
 >>> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
 >>>  
 
 
 -- 
 Christophe Strobbe
 Akademischer Mitarbeiter
 Responsive Media Experience Research Group (REMEX)
 Hochschule der Medien
 Nobelstraße 10
 70569 Stuttgart
 Tel. +49 711 8923 2749
 
 “It is possible to make a living making free software for
 freedom 
 instead of closed-source proprietary malware for cops.” 
 Jacob Appelbaum, 
 <http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/12/28/jacob-appelbaum-on-resisting-the-surveillance-state/>
 
 
 
Received on Friday, 12 June 2015 12:23:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:19 UTC