- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:32:02 -0500
- To: Phil Evans <pae9@star.le.ac.uk>
- Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
- Message-id: <4CDE0854-AB55-45D2-ADDC-1F77D223D9BB@trace.wisc.edu>
please also pass on to them that TECHNIQUES are never required. We have a number of tool developers who are looking for anything testable and are including all sorts of techniques (advisory or regular) as tests for WCAG conformance. These techniques are just that - techniques. If they want to test for the technique use -- that is fine but they cannot and should not say that any technique is required. Gregg -------------------------------------------------------- Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D. Director Trace R&D Center Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project http://Raisingthefloor.org --- http://GPII.net On Jun 15, 2011, at 6:56 AM, Phil Evans wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks to both of you, yes, this helps a lot. I did seem complete overkill to be requiring a specific order for form elements like this! > > I will pass this information on to the developers of "total validator" (http://www.totalvalidator.com/) since it was their tool that flagged this positioning situation as an error (I miss Bobby!) > > And I will relax in the knowledge that my pages are in fact meeting the WCAG requirement I was aiming for! > > Thanks again, > > Phil > > On 15/06/11 12:53, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: >> Charles is correct. There is no requirement that the labels be in any >> place. the ONLY requirement is the Success Criteria. >> >> >> >> Techniques are NEVER requirements. They are just one technique. If they >> are specified in the understanding document as "WG feels they are >> sufficient" it means just that. The working group feels that this >> TECHNIQUE is sufficient to meet the Success Criteria (or some part of >> it) as specified. >> - it does NOT mean that it is the ONLY way to meet the SC >> - therefore it can NEVER mean that it is required. >> It also does NOT mean that there are no other ways to meet the SC. There >> may be other ways - ways that are not listed in any of the techniques. >> In fact the working group is continually developing and reviewing >> techniques sent in by others and adding them to the techniques document. >> There will be a revisions released soon adding scores of new techniques. >> >> >> NOTE: that the test at the end of the technique is a test of whether the >> TECHNIQUE AS WRITTEN has been met. But the technique is not required to >> meet the SC. it is only one known and recognized way to meet the SC. >> >> The ONLY things that are required are the Success Criteria. >> >> Does this help? >> >> >> /Gregg/ >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D. >> Director Trace R&D Center >> Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering >> and Biomedical Engineering >> University of Wisconsin-Madison >> >> Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International >> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project >> http://Raisingthefloor.org --- http://GPII.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 15, 2011, at 2:33 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >> >>> Hi Phil, >>> >>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:01:11 +0200, Phil Evans <pae9@star.le.ac.uk >>> <mailto:pae9@star.le.ac.uk>> wrote: >>> ... >>>> "3.3.2 Labels or Instructions: Labels or instructions are provided >>>> when content requires user input. (Level A) " >>>> >>>> This seems straightforward enough. However, following via the link >>>> "How to meet 3.3.2" leads to the page: >>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20101014/H44 >>>> >>>> which includes the line, 'Note that the label is positioned after >>>> input elements of type="checkbox" and type="radio".' >>>> >>>> It is not clear to me whether this is a *requirement* or not >>>> (although the validator I am using assumes it is). That is, is the >>>> following part of a form OK or not? >>> >>> The text is part of an old requirement (written when implementation of >>> <label> wasn't very good) which called for *consistent* placement of >>> labels in relation to controls, and suggested that the *common* >>> pattern for checkboxes was to place text after them. >>> >>> While you should certainly ensure that you layout is consistent, I >>> don't think you need to worry so much whether your labels are >>> typically before or after the thing they are labeling (so long as they >>> have proper markup they are likely to be useful in most modern software). >>> >>> IMHO, of course >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> Chaals >>> >>> -- >>> Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group >>> je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk >>> http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com >>> >> > > -- > ------------------------- > > Phil Evans, > Swift Development Scientist > X-ray and Observational Astronomy Group, > University of Leicester > > Tel: +44 (0)116 252 5059 > Mobile: +44 (0)7780 980240 > pae9@star.le.ac.uk > http://www.star.le.ac.uk/~pae9 > http://www.swift.ac.uk > > Follow me as a Swift scientist on Twitter: @swift_phil > http://www.star.le.ac.uk/~pae9/twitter >
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2011 14:32:44 UTC