RE: Issue 122

+1

Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545
On Dec 11, 2015 11:49 AM, "John Foliot" <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> This is an accurate summary of the issue(s) discussed, and I support these
> statements as a consensus view.
>
>
>
> JF
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2015 10:36 AM
> *To:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* CfC: Issue 122
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
> 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
>