Re: CfC: Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1

It all depends on what AT and access features can handle. 

Someday it won’t matter at all since if a human can figure it out— the AT will too — just from the visual appearance.  But that is not true today.  So the answer is "It all depends on what AT and access features can handle today” 

g



> On Dec 8, 2015, at 7:51 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
> 
>> I agree with   “equivalent”    with a recommendation that it be the same whenever appropriate.
> 
> Gregg, would you also require that the label and control have the same parent and not have other controls at the same level to meet SC 1.3.1 or is this not required?
> 
> e.g. would the following fail SC 1.3.1 because the relationship is not programmatic?
> <body>
> <div style="float:left;">
>  <span>label:</span>
> </div>
> <div style="float:left;">
>  <input type="text" title="label">
> </div>
> <div style="clear:both;"></div>
> <div style="float:left;">
>  <span>label2:</span>
> </div>
> <div style="float:left;">
>  <input type="text" title="label2">
> </div>
> </body>
> 
> 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: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 1:19 PM
> To: Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Cc: John Foliot; Makoto Ueki; GLWAI Guidelines WG org; Sailesh Panchang; Steve Faulkner; Paul Adam; Joshue O Connor; Detlev Fischer; David MacDonald; Jonathan Avila
> Subject: Re: CfC: Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1
> 
> I agree with   “equivalent”    with a recommendation that it be the same whenever appropriate.  
> 
> Gregg
> 
> 
>> On Dec 8, 2015, at 7:06 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> ... etc. As for the onscreen text and the aria-label string being identical: I believe this should be true, but it is currently unclear in WCAG whether or not this is an actual requirement. It is, I think, something that the WG should take up separately, as has been suggested elsewhere.
>> 
>> I am wary of requiring that these be identical and am suggesting that people consider “equivalent”.  
>> 
>> In technique H65 (http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20-TECHS/H65.html) there are some examples where you meet 1.3.1/3.3.2/4.1.2 and the title doesn’t match the label and it is very difficult because the “label” is interpreted from additional information on the page so it is difficult to match exactly.  In example 2 (“phone number” as the fieldset legend but with 3 small text inputs) each section has a title with additional information that references the legend but provides the additional information that is needed.
>> 
>> I don’t think that anyone is saying that this isn’t ok, but I have to wonder whether people would say that this example actually fails 3.3.2 because there isn’t a label or if it fails 1.3.1 because the title attribute doesn’t match the legend that is used as the label.
>> 
>> I believe that the “label” for this example comes from the legend text and the fact that there are 3 adjacent inputs that would be clear and familiar to any north american user, and the title is doing an adequate job of providing equivalent but not identical information.
>> 
>> AWK 
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2015 18:55:42 UTC