RE: CfC: Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1

Ø  There too many ways to mess this up to depend on association without explicit linkage or implicit inclusion.

In some languages there is not a way to associate the label and form field – without some sort of clause such as “when technology allows” we’d risk running into an issue where WCAG would not be technology neutral.

Jonathan

--
Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>

703-637-8957 (o)
Follow us: Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/#%21/ssbbartgroup> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/#%21/SSBBARTGroup> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog> | Newsletter<http://eepurl.com/O5DP>

From: Wayne Dick [mailto:wayneedick@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 6:33 PM
To: Laura Carlson
Cc: David MacDonald; Andrew Kirkpatrick; WCAG
Subject: Re: CfC: Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1

I think a mechanism must exist that ensures the "label" text be linked to the control. Proximity does not do it. If you have a sequence of elements, not in a list and it reads "label control label control label control..." does a program have to parse the entire sequence to determine that labels come before their associated controls. Is this reasonable; is it deterministic? CSS could shuffle the order of the elements in presentation. There too many ways to mess this up to depend on association without explicit linkage or implicit inclusion.  So for the label element at least, I do not see how a deterministic relationship can be guaranteed without  explicit linkage or implicit wrapping.
Wayne

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com<mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all,

+1

If I had been around at the time, I too would have certainly voted for
requiring explicit clickable mechanisms. Revisiting this in an
extension spec WCAG.next is a good idea.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On 11/22/15, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
> 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<tel:613.235.4902>
>
> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com<http://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<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29157%2057%2057%2057%2045>
>> Fax   +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5<tel:%2B49%20%280%2940%20439%2010%2068-5>
>>
>> http://www.testkreis.de

>> Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

--
Laura L. Carlson