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

RE: H65 updates

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 00:14:53 +0000
To: Christophe Strobbe <strobbe@hdm-stuttgart.de>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BY2PR03MB2728D2D4BE256CEE5FBA6F59BBA0@BY2PR03MB272.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
> If H65 is deleted, HTML forms can only meet SC 3.3.2 using visible labels.

Visual labels or instructions are required for SC 3.3.2 -- that is the very essence of the success criteria.  We allow for visual labels in several different ways including group labels or other controls such as a radio button's label that act as a label -- but visual labels or instructions are still required.    Perhaps some other aspects of the technique can be updated such as the test procedure.
	
Jonathan

-- 
Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group 
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com

703-637-8957 (o) 
Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter


-----Original Message-----
From: Christophe Strobbe [mailto:strobbe@hdm-stuttgart.de] 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 6:41 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: H65 updates

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 Saturday, 13 June 2015 00:15:37 UTC

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