Re: CfC: Issue 122

Fine by me. No objections.
Regards,
Sailesh Panchang
Principal Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems Inc
Phone 703-225-0380 ext 105

On 12/11/15, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 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 21:24:57 UTC