- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 13:45:51 -0500
- To: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
- Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>, Paul Adam <paul.adam@deque.com>, "josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie>, Makoto UEKI <ueki@infoaxia.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDYCVv5FW9ntY7uay-fbCM1Nz0B5Vgy7dQngVOtN_1LJMg@mail.gmail.com>
PS Jon, your examples ring true for me, as to the current consensus. 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 Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 1:43 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Hi Sailesh > > That sounds like the current consensus to me... > > 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 Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Sailesh Panchang < > sailesh.panchang@deque.com> wrote: > >> 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 18:46:25 UTC