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

> but I believe we do at least partly agree here   that the fact that it is
used as a last resort for the accessible name  calculation is correct?

I think its ok for Firefox to present it as a last resort.

But it's still a failure of WCAG 3.3.2


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 Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> I think that the greatest problem with relying on placeholder is with
> 3.3.2 - I believe that the group felt that a label needs to be persistent
> and that the fact that a placeholder used as a label will disappear when
> the field is filled can trigger a failure.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Head of Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
> On 8/8/18, 15:27, "Jonathan Avila" <jon.avila@levelaccess.com> wrote:
>
>     > We've identified that placeholder use as the sole form of labelling
> is strongly discouraged, but I believe we do at least partly agree here
> that the fact that it is used as a last resort for the accessible name
> calculation is correct?
>
>     If it is a last resort for the accessible name -- then when only it is
> used the component still has an accessible name and assuming it's a
> meaningful name it passes WCAG.  I don't agree with that putting in the acc
> name even as a last resort because it legitamizes it's use as an accessible
> name and makes it difficult for us to prevent it's use and proliferation.
> I'd prefer to see something like -- is not used in the accessible name
> calculation but browser's may expose it as fallback content.
>
>     Jonathan
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk]
>     Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 3:08 PM
>     To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>     Subject: Re: Bug: Firefox Accessibility Inspector reports placeholder
> attribute as eligible for accessible name
>
>
>
>     On 08/08/2018 19:46, Jonathan Avila wrote:
>     >> And, in Firefox and Chrome at least (possibly others, no time to
> test) the placeholder IS exposed by the browser as the input's
> programmatically determinable / accessible name. So how is it failing?
>     >
>     > If the placeholder is exposed as the name but doesn't provide a name
> for the field but rather an example value then it would fail some SC
> because the programmatic name isn't a name but rather something else.  In
> the same we would fail an input for date who's aria-label was "mm/dd/yyyy".
>
>     Yes, but I was responding specifically to the example Glenda provided,
>     where the placeholder was used with "First name" as value...
>
>     Getting back to the original topic: placeholder is currently one of
> the
>     last resort attributes used to provide an accessible name to a
> control,
>     in the absence of anything more suitable like a <label>, an
> aria-label,
>     aria-labelledby or even a title attribute.
>
>     We've identified that placeholder use as the sole form of labelling is
>     strongly discouraged, but I believe we do at least partly agree here
>     that the fact that it is used as a last resort for the accessible name
>     calculation is correct?
>
>     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
>
>
>
>