- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 21:37:34 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
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