- From: <josh@interaccess.ie>
- Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 19:57:36 +0000
- To: "Paul Adam" <paul.adam@deque.com>, "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com>
- Cc: "Detlev Fischer" <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>, "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca>, "Makoto UEKI" <ueki@infoaxia.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <emed06014c-c108-4816-b5df-c29ff83ae641@josh_machine>
>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. This is interesting Paul, and could be something to bring up with the HTML5 working group and/or the ARIA group. As obviously use of @title like that does imply an explicit relationship that maybe needs a better markup pattern to imply author intent? HTH Josh >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 > >>On Dec 4, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <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 >>http://twitter.com/awkawk >>http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility >> >>From: "paul.adam@deque.com" >>Date: Friday, December 4, 2015 at 16:55 >>To: Andrew Kirkpatrick >>Cc: "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/ >> >> >>On Dec 4, 2015, at 3:43 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <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> >>>wrote: >>> >>>Does this make sense to you? Others? >> >><PastedGraphic-2.png> >
Received on Monday, 7 December 2015 19:57:11 UTC