RE: CfC: Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1

> 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.

In my opinion the search button in your example is the visual label (SC 3.3.2) and the matching title attribute provides support for SC 1.3.1 Info and relationships.  So if both are present then this passes.

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: Sailesh Panchang [mailto:sailesh.panchang@deque.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 11:41 AM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Cc: Detlev Fischer; Paul Adam; josh@interaccess.ie; David MacDonald; Makoto UEKI; WCAG
Subject: 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 17:10:26 UTC