Re: CfC: Issue 122

Sailesh,
To get the clean and clear answer to the CfC - do you agree with the proposed response?

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe 

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk

http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility









On 12/14/15, 13:32, "Sailesh Panchang" <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> wrote:

>Really, I do not think there is a need for any SC or an extension
>that will require or mandate  that  one  MUST use explicitly
>associated labels.
>When a label is explicitly / implicitly associated, clicking it has
>moved focus to the corresponding control. This is a UA feature that
>aids accessibility and documented in H44.
>So when a visible text label is present, accessibility advocates /
>consultants should urge developers to use the most appropriate
>technique  that helps  conform to all applicable SCs and helps the
>widest group of PWDs.
>Now one can  rely on the minimum level as someone suggested in a
>previous thread and claim conformance with
><p><input type="checkbox" title="send me a ton of email" />Send me a
>ton of email</p>
>but accessibility consultants must highlight the demerits of this
>technique and educate developers to use the right technique in the
>circumstances.
>
>If a custom control is used for which H44 cannot be used, and the
>control is labelled with aria-labelledby, will WCAG2  similarly
>require clickability of that label too? Will the UA need to implement
>this or will it become the duty of the developer?
>
>Compare this to SC 2.4.1. Ignore other  SCs (like Level AA 2.4.7) and
>other sufficient techniques for the moment, if a skip link is used to
>claim conformance,  the link needs to be visible / become visible on
>tab focus. The SC does not require the link to become visible. But,
>the test procedures for G1, G123, and G124 all require that the link
>either always be visible or be visible when the link acquires focus.
>Not doing so amounts to incorrect implementation of the technique and
>one cannot rely on that technique to claim conformance to SC 2.4.1. So
>should this "visibility" of the mechanism be written into SC 2.4.1? I
>think not.
>Sure one can use other techniques like headings and landmarks, but
>again,  consultants need to point out that these will not help sighted
>keyboard-only users when one needs to install a plugin to make it work
>and they are not available for all browsers / do not work reliably.
>
>Best wishes,
>Sailesh Panchang
>
>
>On 12/12/15, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de> wrote:
>> Agree with Laura. (and thanks to Paul for bringing it up). We should revisit
>> the issue in an extension.
>> Detlev
>>
>> Sent from phone
>>
>> Sent from phone
>>
>>> Am 11.12.2015 um 17:59 schrieb Laura Carlson
>>> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> +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 Monday, 14 December 2015 19:58:58 UTC