RE: CfC: Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1

I’ve gotten lost with all the discussion about these but does this pertain to the checkbox and or radio button group “question” as well?

In the example I often use: What’s your favorite ice cream? Chocolate or Vanilla.
If the question is not announced, it does the users no good to hear only the answers to choose.

I often find issues more with the lack of the question being associated than the answers.

And what about when one checkbox or radio button will open up other things link drop down lists or another sub section that was not displayed. Do we need to announce that the selection of this box will do “abc”? In the financial world this is common. What is your employment status? Let’s say the unemployed will display another set of questions or a select list or Retired displays previous employment information to be filled out that was not displayed before.


Regards,

Alan

Sent from Mail for Windows 10



From: Jonathan Avila
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 2:01 PM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick;John Foliot;Makoto Ueki;GLWAI Guidelines WG org;Sailesh Panchang;Steve Faulkner;Paul Adam;Joshue O Connor;Detlev Fischer;David MacDonald
Subject: RE: CfC: Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1


> So the answer is "It all depends on what AT and access features can handle today”

I suppose we need to determine what "handle" means here.
* Use of the label for an accessible name is not needed because we have a programmatic accessible name.
* Allowing the label to be clickable doesn't seem like a requirement because we allow aria-labelledby and we even allow aria-labelledby to be hidden.
* Allowing the label and field to stay together when wrapped or zoomed seems like a reasonable requirement -- but that may happen with the user agent.
* So what features do we need to check for in AT support?  This set of tests needs to be defined in a technique IMO.

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: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 1:55 PM
To: Jonathan Avila
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick; John Foliot; Makoto Ueki; GLWAI Guidelines WG org; Sailesh Panchang; Steve Faulkner; Paul Adam; Joshue O Connor; Detlev Fischer; David MacDonald
Subject: 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 19:18:14 UTC