- From: Eric Eggert <ee@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2018 09:53:33 +0200
- To: "Glenda Sims" <glenda.sims@deque.com>
- Cc: "Schnabel, Stefan" <stefan.schnabel@sap.com>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
<w3c-hat off> On 9 Aug 2018, at 2:37, Glenda Sims wrote: > I think I can find a11y peace with the thought of placeholder being > (as a > last ditch choice) allowed to serve as accessible name. And agreeing > with > Jon Avila that that placeholder value serving as an accessible name > needs > to be meaningful as a label. > > Eric, Patrick, is it still valid for me to ask for F68 to be updated > to > include placeholder? > https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/F68 I think there is value in having clear and unequivocal guidance on if/when we think placeholders can meet WCAG 2. There is some discussion that placeholder – even with a visible label – is not a good, let alone accessible, user experience: https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2018/06/placeholder-attribute/ <w3c-hat back on> For additional context this is the guidance that we give in the tutorials, which probably also needs to be updated to be more clear, depending on the outcome of this discussion: https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/forms/instructions/#placeholder-text Best, Eric > > And if placeholder can be an accessible name, then my dang codepen > example > would pass WCAG 2.1 SC 2.5.3 Label in Name (sigh) > > And then failing my codepen on SC 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions (when > the > placeholder disappears and there is no visible label). (nodding in > agreement to Brooks) > > Thanks for entertaining this question and helping me see more clearly. > G > > *glenda sims* <glenda.sims@deque.com>, cpacc > <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certification> | team a11y > lead > | 512.963.3773 > > deque systems <http://www.deque.com> accessibility for good > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Eric Eggert <ee@w3.org> wrote: > >> <w3c-hat off> >> >> Hi Glenda, all, >> >> Just a quick reminder that if something that is not a WCAG compliant >> technique, it does not mean that browsers are not allowed to surface >> it in >> their APIs. >> >> If browsers decide to surface the placeholder as an accessible name >> with >> the alternative of having no description at all, I think that’s >> their >> discretion. I also think that screen reader users would/do appreciate >> that >> as it renders form fields accessible to them where they otherwise >> wouldn't >> be for them. (There are accessibility issues for other Groups.) I >> personally don’t feel it serves them well to be thrown under the >> bus for >> theoretical purity. >> >> As for the argument that having it in the accessible name calculation >> would encourage developers to use just placeholders, I don’t feel >> that’s >> valid from my day-to-day observations. They use the pattern because >> it is >> modern and because they can. Most developers don’t care about the >> accessibility of their websites, still. But they know they have to >> add some >> text to the field so there is a chance that users can fill it out. >> >> I totally think “just placeholders” should be flagged in testing >> tools and >> maybe in browsers and validators, too, if the group decides it >> violates >> WCAG. But I think if browsers want to let assistive technologies >> grasp onto >> that last straw of an accessible name, let them have it. >> >> Eric >> >> On 8 Aug 2018, at 19:43, Glenda Sims wrote: >> >> Alastair, >> >> Would it be possible to bring up this question on the next AGWG >> agenda? >> Reason I'm dealing with the question right now...we are assessing >> client >> sites for WCAG 2.1 SC 2.5.3 Label in Name https://www.w3.org/TR/WCA >> G21/#label-in-name >> >> I think it is important, that a11y experts be able to agree on >> whether the >> following code snippet minimally passes: >> >> WCAG 2.1 SC 1.3.1 Info and Relationships >> WCAG 2.1 SC 2.5.3 Label in Name >> >> Code snippet: <input type="text" name="first" placeholder="First >> Name" >> id="first"> >> Sample of code to test: https://codepen.io/goodwitch/pen/OwEmEw >> Firefox Accessibility Inspector reports this field as having an >> accessible >> name of “First Name” >> >> I believe it fails both >> >> - 1.3.1 Info and Relationships >> - (based on F68 https://www.w3.org/TR/2016 >> /NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/F68 >> <https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/F68>) >> - 2.5.3 Label in Name >> - because the placeholder text fails to be the accessible name >> based on F68 >> >> In the interest of helping people with disabilities...I am starting >> to see >> what Jamie Teh is saying about placeholder being like title. And I'm >> about >> to say something super controversial...do we need to update Failure >> Technique 68. >> >> Peace out, >> Glenda >> >> >> *glenda sims* <glenda.sims@deque.com>, cpacc >> <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certification> | team a11y >> lead | 512.963.3773 >> >> deque systems <http://www.deque.com> accessibility for good >> >> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:01 AM, Schnabel, Stefan >> <stefan.schnabel@sap.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Should this be exposed by the browser to the accessibility API as >>> "foo" >>> or not, if there's nothing else giving the input a programmatic >>> name? >>> >>> >>> It should. But it violates WCAG requirement for VISIBLE label for >>> input, >>> so it is an authoring error, too. >>> >>> There is a temptation in saying “browsers! Don”t map authoring >>> errors”. >>> But this is like expecting from your camera “don’t photograph >>> this! It’s >>> pathetic”. Such an approach lacks simplicity and makes things >>> difficult to >>> predict from a technical perspective. >>> >>> The more interesting case is >>> >>> <input placeholder=“foo” aria-label=“bar” title=“fine”> >>> >>> How can it be granted that on focus screen readers will speak all >>> three >>> exploiting the API mapping and not using the DOM info? >>> >>> - Stefan >>> >>> Von meinem iPad gesendet >>> >>> Am 07.08.2018 um 22:47 schrieb Patrick H. Lauke >>> <redux@splintered.co.uk>: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 07/08/2018 21:37, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: >>> ... >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> >>> For that matter, I could make an input with just, say, aria-label, >>> and >>> that gets exposed as the accessible name...e.g. just >>> >>> <input aria-label="foo"> >>> >>> Should this be exposed by the browser to the accessibility API as >>> "foo" >>> or not, if there's nothing else giving the input a programmatic >>> name? >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Eric Eggert >> Web Accessibility Specialist >> Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) at World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >> -- Eric Eggert Web Accessibility Specialist Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) at World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2018 07:53:46 UTC