Re: CfC: Issue 122

I believe at the time not all browsers implemented the clickable label
behaviour... it would have been difficult to get consensus on, I think it
might still be difficult to get consensus... I'll vote for it...

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://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 Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com
> wrote:

> +1
>
> If I had been around at the time, I would have certainly voted for
> requiring WCAG 2.0 to require that check boxes and radio buttons have
> clickable labels. It is a pity that it doesn't. Revisiting this in an
> extension spec and WCAG.next is a good idea.
>
> Kindest Regards,
> Laura
>
> On 12/11/15, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
> > CALL FOR CONSENSUS – ends Tuesday December 15 at 11:30am Boston time.
> >
> > Related to Issue 122 in GitHub[1] we believe that the discussion has
> > wide-ranging and productive, but at this point think that we have heard
> all
> > of the arguments [2][3] and that a consensus opinion has emerged.
> >
> > The specific question in the GitHub issue is "Please clarify that WCAG's
> > Info & Relationships SC requires that checkboxes and radio buttons have
> > clickable labels, i.e. programmatic "relationship" associations and a
> title
> > alone will not suffice”
> >
> > The proposed consensus view is that WCAG 2.0 does not require that
> > checkboxes and radio buttons have clickable labels.  The Working Group
> > agrees that there is utility for end users when the labels for these (and
> > other) controls are clickable, but there are no success criteria that
> make
> > this specific requirement.
> >
> > Related to this question is whether the page content used as the visible
> > label for the control (in order to meet SC 3.3.2) must be explicitly
> > associated with the control that is being labeled. The proposed consensus
> > view is that the relationship between a control and the content used to
> > label that control may be made implicitly as well as explicitly, and what
> > will really dictate whether SC 1.3.1 (as well as SC 4.1.2) is met is
> whether
> > the assistive technologies used in the site’s conformance claim are able
> to
> > provide support for the implicit or explicit relationships provided in
> the
> > markup. An explicit markup relationship (e.g. Using the HTML for and id
> > attributes to make the association or by enclosing the input within the
> > label element) is preferred as it will increase the likelihood that user
> > agents will support the design pattern and will simplify testing, but
> > implicit relationships may also be supported and as a result may satisfy
> > WCAG 2.0 success criteria.
> >
> > The working group agrees that there is benefit to many users when they
> can
> > click on a larger area for a checkbox or radio button and on some user
> > agents using the label element in conjunction with an input can make this
> > happen without any work by the page author.  Despite the benefit, this
> was
> > not part of the original intent of WCAG 2.0, so the working group will
> > forward this issue to the task forces that are currently working on
> > extensions for WCAG 2.0 for review as a topic for consideration within an
> > extension. In addition, this issue will be added to the “Post WCAG 2.0”
> wiki
> > page[4] for issues that the group wants to keep a record of for
> > consideration in future versions of WCAG.
> >
> > If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not
> > been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
> being
> > able to live with” this position, please let the group know before the
> CfC
> > deadline.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/122
> > [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015OctDec/0193.html
> > [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015OctDec/0225.html
> > [4] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Post_WCAG_2_Issues_Sorted
> >
> > Thanks,
> > AWK
> >
> > Andrew Kirkpatrick
> > Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> > Adobe
> >
> > akirkpat@adobe.com
> > http://twitter.com/awkawk
> > http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
> >
>
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>
>
>