- From: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 17:00:24 -0500
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Cc: "Newton, Brooks (Legal)" <Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com>, Eric Eggert <ee@w3.org>, "Schnabel, Stefan" <stefan.schnabel@sap.com>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAH2ngEQMhNmpiYHJ47FrnAe1LYM8pfFDDWtHdWfqnvh0HsJ8qw@mail.gmail.com>
+1 to David writing up a failure technique about the placeholder attribute and 3.3.2 +1 for clarifying specifically that placeholder is eligible to be a last ditch resort for accessible name in F68 (so people don't have to read thru long threads to figure this out) Peace, Love & A11Y, Goodwitch *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 Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:50 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: > It might make sense to add a failure: > > "Failure of SC 3.3.2 due to using the HTML placeholder attribute for a > label on form fields" > > I could write that up and do a pull request on Github. > > 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 Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Newton, Brooks (Legal) < > Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com> wrote: > >> Thank you, David, for the excellent write up and explanation of how >> placeholder works with current user agent and assistive technology >> combinations. Also, thanks for providing clarity on the intent of SC >> 3.3.2. I’ve got your blog post bookmarked. >> >> >> >> Also, many thanks to Stefan, Andrew, Glenda, Jon, Patrick and Eric for >> the valuable contributions to this thread. Glenda, great summary of the >> issues at play with using placeholder text. My understanding of this topic >> is substantially improved having read everyone’s thoughts on this subject. >> >> >> >> Brooks >> >> >> >> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 08, 2018 8:09 PM >> *To:* Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com> >> *Cc:* Eric Eggert <ee@w3.org>; Schnabel, Stefan <stefan.schnabel@sap.com>; >> Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >> *Subject:* Re: Bug: Firefox Accessibility Inspector reports placeholder >> attribute as eligible for accessible name >> >> >> >> I've done some testing and posted the results on Placeholder and offer my >> opinion on what WCAG says, and my memories of what 3.3.2 meant when we were >> writing it. >> >> >> >> http://davidmacd.com/blog/is-placeholder-accessible-label.html >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__davidmacd.com_blog_is-2Dplaceholder-2Daccessible-2Dlabel.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=tn3Zye3R_PBJ2o8yLqfYtSRbqvAzByfmpy1CLSlllCM&s=u1jVO0Q2MaEBF_n7bkWBDdilqcK3chxASBjOA3oWrFY&e=> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> David MacDonald >> >> >> >> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* >> >> Tel: 613.235.4902 >> >> LinkedIn >> >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_davidmacdonald100&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=tn3Zye3R_PBJ2o8yLqfYtSRbqvAzByfmpy1CLSlllCM&s=2G0PyiGOzGRrFbuCwET8RhiOp8RfowVS80MS8_LCsr0&e=> >> >> twitter.com/davidmacd >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_davidmacd&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=tn3Zye3R_PBJ2o8yLqfYtSRbqvAzByfmpy1CLSlllCM&s=XVKYwoQDl-OoIjHd9u4g0wrSxWvDyF6cI4UDrW03Co8&e=> >> >> GitHub >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_DavidMacDonald&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=tn3Zye3R_PBJ2o8yLqfYtSRbqvAzByfmpy1CLSlllCM&s=nLvM6DdDGExUWgl0kyX-hQnIvpOYvorGSmVsA8XHiGg&e=> >> >> www.Can-Adapt.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.can-2Dadapt.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=tn3Zye3R_PBJ2o8yLqfYtSRbqvAzByfmpy1CLSlllCM&s=ldO9OG2YJi6pITnxqcnYFgcRBvIFCWKbzCco7Sd1nQo&e=> >> >> >> >> * Adapting the web to all users* >> >> * Including those with disabilities* >> >> >> >> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.davidmacd.com_disclaimer.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=tn3Zye3R_PBJ2o8yLqfYtSRbqvAzByfmpy1CLSlllCM&s=2qu5zad5mgom20h3CmKsd3xGPHB4A8PzGNx9Jb6Bs8Q&e=> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:37 PM, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com> >> 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-20 >> 161007/F68 >> >> >> >> 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 >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.accessibilityassociation.org_certification&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=tn3Zye3R_PBJ2o8yLqfYtSRbqvAzByfmpy1CLSlllCM&s=GFDnfNnBOfxgySz7U9F_swJk6GzEL15VaWMs1A1HTu0&e=> >> | team a11y lead | 512.963.3773 >> >> >> >> deque systems >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.deque.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=tn3Zye3R_PBJ2o8yLqfYtSRbqvAzByfmpy1CLSlllCM&s=89tIR9rgOqPHeKvm6bmrWc6H3w7ZcOMstQMM28gVfyI&e=> >> 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 >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__codepen.io_goodwitch_pen_OwEmEw&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=tn3Zye3R_PBJ2o8yLqfYtSRbqvAzByfmpy1CLSlllCM&s=9YAF65uCv_JYHHvpkD-8DGB2LG8uMi-GrKtBnGa482c&e=> >> >> 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) >> >> >> - 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 >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.accessibilityassociation.org_certification&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=tn3Zye3R_PBJ2o8yLqfYtSRbqvAzByfmpy1CLSlllCM&s=GFDnfNnBOfxgySz7U9F_swJk6GzEL15VaWMs1A1HTu0&e=> >> | team a11y lead | 512.963.3773 >> >> >> >> deque systems >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.deque.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=tn3Zye3R_PBJ2o8yLqfYtSRbqvAzByfmpy1CLSlllCM&s=89tIR9rgOqPHeKvm6bmrWc6H3w7ZcOMstQMM28gVfyI&e=> >> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.splintered.co.uk&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=tn3Zye3R_PBJ2o8yLqfYtSRbqvAzByfmpy1CLSlllCM&s=h-ZNT83pqNejSsSuqfErEuL50yBDI_GH6HTF9zMiyC8&e=> >> | https://github.com/patrickhlauke >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_patrickhlauke&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=tn3Zye3R_PBJ2o8yLqfYtSRbqvAzByfmpy1CLSlllCM&s=wZXWcWpGzfAVHn_HHwhYjU5QBof7XvWf0aK8goDcv3Y&e=> >> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__flickr.com_photos_redux_&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=tn3Zye3R_PBJ2o8yLqfYtSRbqvAzByfmpy1CLSlllCM&s=3EVXJjI8y_32BP1G4xoJRWjr_ZIDRIfPQgplCweoVf4&e=> >> | http://redux.deviantart.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__redux.deviantart.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=tn3Zye3R_PBJ2o8yLqfYtSRbqvAzByfmpy1CLSlllCM&s=3CL1hckKHQ-5aKRSTKQQ7OUhD3BH6jYiAGIl9_wDSto&e=> >> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Eric Eggert >> Web Accessibility Specialist >> Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) at World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >> >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2018 22:00:56 UTC