Re: CfC: Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1

Hi Josh, I would definitely be happy to join a call if folks would like to discuss the issue. 

> As to the first point, I don't understand how a user is supposed to click on a non-visible label in the first place? Could you comment further on what you are thinking? Do you mean that even if a label isn't visible the 'hit area' may still be active as if there was a visible label?

The requirement is that if a label is visible it must have a relationship association. I’m not talking about controls that don’t have visible labels. For example this code: <p><input type=“checkbox”> Please send me a ton of email</p> fails info and relationships because the is no association from label to control. 

Thanks!

Paul J. Adam
Accessibility Evangelist 
www.deque.com

> On Dec 5, 2015, at 4:07 AM, josh@interaccess.ie wrote:
> 
> Paul,
>  
> Just to be clear - the original thread brought up a couple of interesting issues.
>  
> 1)  There are no examples of radio button or checkbox without a visible label that is programmatically connected to the input so that you can click on the label to check the checkbox or radio button. 
>  
> 2) You raised the issue that always having a clickable label is a desirable thing. In many cases the larger the better, as it makes these controls accessible to many users. All well and good, and no-one in the group would say this is a bad thing.
>  
> However, to comment on the second item first, and on clickable labels in general -  it just may not be desirable in *all* cases to mandate that developers do this - it may not be a suitable pattern depending on the environment, the way a form is put together etc. This is one of the main blockers to your original suggestion/issue IMO. So we are hesitant in suggesting that the group takes this direction. Yes, we have spoken about this at length on the calls and are discussing it here and the consensus supports our decision to leave things as they are. Again, no one is saying that per say, clickable labels are bad but they may just not be appropriate in all situations and our spec needs to provide gestalt guidance, and then as you drill down into our resources - specific suitable techniques that support a wide range of use cases.
>  
> As to the first point, I don't understand how a user is supposed to click on a non-visible label in the first place? Could you comment further on what you are thinking? Do you mean that even if a label isn't visible the 'hit area' may still be active as if there was a visible label?
>  
> Finally, on the first point, as Andrew points out we have existing examples of there inputs can be connected to visible label via aria-labelledby by and for/id combinations and even when there are no labels you can use the well supported @title attribute on <input> elements. All good. So no-one is arguing against programmatically determined relationships, and we are aware that we need to keep our techniques up to date as development and design patterns change (and are actively working on this).
>  
> So I look forward to more input from you on this, actually it would be great if you could attend a call to discuss - as this topic is interesting nuanced discussion - and may point the way to wider issues that the group need to deal with.
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Josh
>  
>  
>  
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Paul Adam" <paul.adam@deque.com <mailto:paul.adam@deque.com>>
> To: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
> Cc: "josh@interaccess.ie <mailto:josh@interaccess.ie>" <josh@interaccess.ie <mailto:josh@interaccess.ie>>; "Detlev Fischer" <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de <mailto:detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>>; "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>>; "Makoto UEKI" <ueki@infoaxia.com <mailto:ueki@infoaxia.com>>; "WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
> Sent: 05/12/2015 00:45:59
> Subject: Re: CfC: Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1
>  
>> 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://twitter.com/awkawk>
>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility <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 
>>> http://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>
>> 
>