- From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:11:57 -0600
- To: "W3C WAI Interest Group" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <201603222212.u2MMC6A5016752@d01av04.pok.ibm.com>
I'm starting this thread because I believe there is a need for
"perceivable" information by all users, including those who are sighted
but may have vision impairments, reading impairments, cognitive
impairments, aging, or are learning about new content or a new
application.
There are differing opinions and interpretations on whether visible labels
are required by WCAG 2.0 on things like form elements, row and column
headings, and interactive elements (widgets). Often the argument is made
that when such relationships and labels are visible to one set of sighted
users, that those relationships and labels can be made to be perceivable
to assistive technology users as well, but not the other way around. I
even advocate as a best practice that most any and all information
perceivable to an assistive technology user should be made visible to
sighted users too.
Some common interactive elements or widgets can sometimes be an exception,
for example:
1. do all carousel widgets need a visible label?
2. do all expandable/collapsable tree widgets need a visible
label?
3. Once you know what the widget is, do you really want to clutter
up the visible display with labels?
Some rows and columns in a data table can sometimes be an exception, for
example: columns in data tables have an implied heading, or a row has no
row heading (or only one that is implied) because of the type of
information in that column or row. A column with just dates may have an
implied heading of "Date", but no visible heading.
Some form controls can sometimes have an implied label, for example when
there are 5 radio buttons in a series, with the 1st one labeled Strongly
Agree, the last one labeled Strongly Disagree One, the middle radio button
visible labeled "Neutral", but the 2nd and 4th radio buttons are not
visible labeled because of limited space.
Many subject matter experts interpret WCAG as not requiring a visible
label on all form elements, row and column headings, or all interactive
elements, because many interpret the following from WCAG 2.0 Success
Criteria:
1.3.3 Info and Relationships says that when a label is presented visually,
that it also be programmatically determined, but not that is has to be
presented visibly.
2.4.2 Page Titled does require a page title, and it implies that they be
"perceivable" to all users when it says: "this success criterion benefits
all users in allowing users to quickly and easily identify whether the
information contained in the Web page is relevant to their needs."
2.4.6 Headings and Labels does not require headings or labels. This
success criterion requires that if headings or labels are provided, they
be descriptive. ('descriptive' is subjective, which is one reason its
level AA). Also note that, if headings or labels are provided, they must
meet 1.3.1.
4.1.2 Name, Role, Value says that the name has to be programmatically
determined - not that it has to be visible.
WCAG References and links:
1.3.1 Info and Relationships: Information, structure, and relationships
conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined or are
available in text. (Level A)
2.4.2 Page Titled: Web pages have titles that describe topic or purpose.
(Level A)
2.4.6 Headings and Labels: Headings and labels describe topic or purpose.
(Level AA)
4.1.2 Name, Role, Value: For all user interface components (including but
not limited to: form elements, links and components generated by scripts),
the name and role can be programmatically determined; states, properties,
and values that can be set by the user can be programmatically set; and
notification of changes to these items is available to user agents,
including assistive technologies. (Level A)
Note: This success criterion is primarily for Web authors who develop or
script their own user interface components. For example, standard HTML
controls already meet this success criterion when used according to
specification.
UAAG 1.0 did have Guideline 2 "Ensure that users have access to all
content, notably conditional content that may have been provided to meet
the requirements of the [WCAG]
UAAG 2.0 Draft does not seem to have a success criteria to render the
invisible labels that were added to meet success criteria.
Is there a gap in the requirements between WCAG and UAAG that
disproportionately affect sighted users with cognitive disabilities?
Does anyone have a difffering opinon or interpretation of WCAG 2.0. Seems
to me that for better visual preceivability, better cognitive
understanding, and better interactive expereince that everyone, including
those using unaided browsers should be able to determine the label of the
form element,, column or row heading, and label of the interactive
elements (software widgets)?
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins,
Accessibility Business Development Executive
IBM Research - IBM Accessibility
ibm.com/able
facebook.com/IBMAccessibility
twitter.com/IBMAccess
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2016 22:12:41 UTC