Re: CfC: Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1

H44 states that only a visible label will satisfy SC 3.3.2.
Understanding doc for SC 3.3.2 explains that a label needs to be PD
and also lists the benefit of a PD label and clickable area.
Example #3 (Search Form) of H65 says the search field with a title is
sufficient for  passing SC 3.3.2 as visually the search button is
enough of a visual cue ... i.e. the search button doubles up as a
label for the field.
Admittedly, Techniques for SC 3.3.2 lists H65 lower down in the list
and there is a note, "Note: The techniques at the end of the above
list should be considered "last resort" and only used when the other
techniques cannot be applied to the page".
I have interpreted this as, "the WG by consensus deems the title as
sufficient" for SC 3.3.2.
On this basis I have accepted this "double duty"  of the search button
that has helped a tester turn a blind eye to  SC 3.3.2's need for
visible label / instruction.
Likewise, I suppose, for practical considerations,  the WG by
consensus deems that the title is sufficient for conveying
info-relationships too for SC 1.3.1 in cases like a search form.
Right?
Thanks,
Sailesh Panchang


On 12/5/15, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
> When you have a checkbox and a label next to each other and these are
> visually and semantically coupled  AND your technology offers tried and
> proven ways to explicitly encode that info relationship I still do not see
> how a failure to do so is not failing SC 1.3.1.
>
> AWK: Because WCAG does not state anywhere that this is a requirement.  It is
> a great idea and one that we should consider for future versions or
> extensions, but currently there isn’t anything in WCAG that indicates that
> the presence of an explicit means to do this is required.
>
> I think WCAG should rest on checking proper use of determining explicit
> programmatic relationships where technologies allow these to be formed. I.e.
> according to standards, not according to what you might get away with in
> terms of AT repair behaviour.
>
> AWK: I completely agree.  But that isn’t what it currently says, we have the
> whole “accessibility support” section that was designed to help ensure that
> developers weren’t just following a spec or a standard that wasn’t supported
> by browsers or AT, but with it came the notion that if browsers and AT
> supported a technique that wasn’t based on the best part (or possibly any
> part) of a standard that would be ok.
>
> AWK
>
>
> Am 05.12.2015 um 01:45 schrieb Paul Adam
> <paul.adam@deque.com<mailto:paul.adam@deque.com>>:
>
> All modern screen readers determine aria-labelledby properly, if not let’s
> file a bug report.
>
> aria-labelledby is an explicit association between an element and the id of
> another element whereas a checkbox and a text string inside the same
> paragraph have no explicit association and I don’t see how they could have a
> relationship just because they’re in the same paragraph. I understand that
> passes for link purpose in context but I didn’t think for info and
> relationships?
>
> Does that mean that form inputs with error messages below the input or input
> format instructions don’t really need to be associated with the error and
> info strings? They can just be in the same paragraph? Or in close
> proximity?
>
> I did not think that you could claim WCAG conformance based on how good of a
> guesser a particular screen reader is. I know that JAWS does lots of
> guessing and VoiceOver does some as well whereas NVDA does not.
>
> I really hope we’re not promoting that these methods can pass WCAG!
>
> Thanks!
>
> Paul J. Adam
> Accessibility Evangelist
> www.deque.com<http://www.deque.com>
>
> On Dec 4, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick
> <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:
>
> Paul,
> When using aria-labelledby which screen readers can determine the label of
> the checkbox?  Which ones determine this properly?  Of course, not all do
> (yet) and the way that you determine is to test it.
>
> Does the less-than-ideal code I suggested pass with all user agents?
> Undoubtedly not.  Does it pass with some?  Yes, and if those are the user
> agents that I use to base my accessibility support claim then that would be
> how I’d justify the pass.
>
> The relationship can be implicit as well as explicit and I believe that also
> includes the case where you have:
>
> <input type=“checkbox” title=“Please send me a ton of email”> Please send me
> a ton of email
>
> I’ll re-emphasize that there is no doubt that using the explicit approaches
> are better, but the thinking expressed on the call I believe was that even
> though the other approaches are not as good that we can’t state that they
> fail.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
> http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
>
> From: "paul.adam@deque.com<mailto:paul.adam@deque.com>"
> Date: Friday, December 4, 2015 at 16:55
> To: Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Cc: "josh@interaccess.ie<mailto:josh@interaccess.ie>", Detlev Fischer, David
> MacDonald, Makoto UEKI, WCAG
> Subject: Re: CfC: Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1
>
> Hi Andrew, no this does not make sense to me.
>
> <PastedGraphic-2.png>
>
> <p><input type=“checkbox”> Please send me a ton of email</p>
>
> You’re saying that this passes info and relationships? Because they’re in
> the same paragraph? It passes in screen readers that can guess the label of
> the checkbox? Which ones guess properly?
>
> I’m not saying that WCAG requires the code to be written in a specific way,
> I’m saying that it requires the relationship association and I don’t see how
> a title attribute that duplicates the visible label text or a checkbox
> inside the same paragraph as the visible label text counts as a relationship
> association.
>
> Thank you all for discussing the issue!
>
> Paul J. Adam
> Accessibility Evangelist
> www.deque.com<http://www.deque.com/>
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2015, at 3:43 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick
> <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:
>
> In the instance of a control that is implicitly associated with a label that
> may even meet 1.3.1 as well as 4.1.2 through the implicit means:
> <p><input type=“checkbox”> Please send me a ton of email</p>
>
> On Dec 4, 2015, at 3:43 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick
> <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:
>
> Does this make sense to you?  Others?
>
> <PastedGraphic-2.png>
>
>

Received on Monday, 7 December 2015 16:41:09 UTC