- From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:40:19 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
- Message-ID: <df6a36f21b1395facb36542ffc56d74e@mail.gmail.com>
In our platform we indicate things like this as “guided automatic” results that flag issues for review by the tester but that if not failed during reviewed do not appear as violations. Testing for certain techniques can be clues as to potential violations and thus can be helpful for tools and platforms to flag for review. Jonathan *From:* w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Gregg Vanderheiden *Sent:* Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:32 AM *To:* Phil Evans *Cc:* Charles McCathieNevile; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org *Subject:* Re: Question re: WCAG2.0, Requirement 3.3.2 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 <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 14:43:38 UTC