Re: CfC: Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1

Andrew's response is my understanding of WCAG consensus which was in play
during the creation of the WCAG. Personally, I would have voted for forcing
the "click the label to select" paradigm ... but that was not the
consensus. If the title or other invisible label reports the visible label
in a programmatic way (today via the API), I believe this was the main
concern during the formation of the WCAG.

I need to put aside my personal preferences in favour of being true to what
I know was the consensus of the time, which I respect.However, I would be
fine with revisiting this in an extension spec or even WCAG.next

I think however, we could add a fail a missing of a visible label on focus
but that is a separate issue.

Cheers,

David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

www.Can-Adapt.com



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de
> wrote:

> I responded on Github.H ere is what I wrote:
>
> "
> I think that in cases where individual labels are used next to checkboxes
> or radio buttons, they constitute a part of the respective control. That's
> why I think it is fair to mandate an explicit association for those cases
> to aid the many users with motor impairments that find it hard to place a
> mouse click on the control itself.
> I would allow for exceptions only in cases where the design does not allow
> for sufficient space for individual visible labels, as in the case of
> checkboxes placed within tables. Here, the title attribute, aria-label
> attribute of some accessibility`supported programmatic association with
> table headers via aria-labelledby can be used.
> So like Adam, I think it fair to define a failure for cases where the
> label is adjacent to the control but authors have failed to make the
> connection programmatically determinable.
> "
>
> I'd add that the minimal requirement expressed in the proposed consensus
> focuses unduly on the needs of screen reader users for whom markup would
> work either way. From the perspective of the many visually impaired and
> motor-impaired users, having clickable visual labels is to something I
> would not be shy to mandate. It's very easily done natively and has been
> good practice for many years.
>
>
> On 21 Nov 2015, at 20:34, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> > https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/122#issuecomment-158676010
>
> --
> Detlev Fischer
> testkreis - das Accessibility-Team von feld.wald.wiese
> c/o feld.wald.wiese
> Thedestraße 2
> 22767 Hamburg
>
> Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45
> Fax   +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5
>
> http://www.testkreis.de
> Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>