Re[2]: CfC: Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1, F91

>
>If we accept all kinds of implicit relationships and deem
>
><p><input type=“checkbox” title=“Please send me a ton of email”> Please 
>send me a ton of email</p>
>
>...a pass of SC 1.3.1 (and I realise there is no unison agreement on 
>that)
No, but I would consider it a pass also. We do (in general) accept 
implicit relationships in code (your next example is a case in point). 
And we sometimes rely on this in tandem with user agent heurisitics to 
provide a positive user experience.

>we should also consider retiring F91 which I fought for and wrote some 
>time ago:
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20150226/F91
>
>Why requiring table headers when the relationship can possibly be 
>determined implicitly (table data  and header cells are included in the 
>table element and the same column?)
If possible they should be explicit. In terms of the thrust of an 
argument on this thread, it is strictly speaking the same logic used to 
argue for explicit labels and 1.3.1, but the main question is, 'Do the 
edge cases break the requirement'?

Thanks

Josh
>
>
>On 5 Dec 2015, at 14:34, 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>:
>>
>>>  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
>>>
>>>>  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
>>>>  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>
>>>
>
>--
>Detlev Fischer
>testkreis - das Accessibility-Team von feld.wald.wiese
>c/o feld.wald.wiese
>Thedestraße 2
>22767 Hamburg
>
>Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45
>Fax   +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5
>
>http://www.testkreis.de
>Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 7 December 2015 20:27:28 UTC