Re: Bug: Firefox Accessibility Inspector reports placeholder attribute as eligible for accessible name

On 07/08/2018 21:27, Alastair Campbell wrote:
> Oohh, interesting, some lovely chicken & egg issues here. I tend to agree with Patrick where he said:
>> the name calculation should take into account placeholder (as a last resort
> 
> For a browser serving it's users, if there is no other info for that input then that's the best thing to do.
> 
> For a spec trying to get authors to do the right thing, don't mention the placeholder attr.

Should a spec not reflect implementation reality? Also, if browsers do 
things that a spec doesn't document, we're back in the realm of weird 
browser heuristics and incompatibilities between implementations.

The reason why placeholder is not advisable as a sole labelling 
mechanism is because it has usability and accessibility (e.g. for COGA) 
issues. But is that a reason not to have browsers expose it? Should they 
expose it only if there's another accessible name, and just as an 
accessible description? Or not at all?

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2018 20:37:59 UTC