- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:50:10 -0500
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDZUribr61Of_jqjxoUbtV7KxX0gpOtf6wpNfQNqZJS-Fg@mail.gmail.com>
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 > > >
Received on Friday, 11 December 2015 18:50:42 UTC