Thread Subject: Re: Group D: 21 (l) and 22(n) accessible forms

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Jim Thatcher
Date: Wed, Nov 29 2006 9:15 AM

Jim Tobias wrote:
> > Andi asked:
> > > Does anyone know why the Access Board thought that the other
> > > provisions were insufficient for the special case of forms?

> I think this was all about PDF at the time.

I disagree with the idea that the requirement on forms can be drawn from
other aspects of the 508 Standards. There is nothing in 508 outside of 22(n)
{and 21(l)} that requires that prompting information be available to screen
reader users.

Correct labeling of form elements is relatively rare on the web in part
because often, even usually, the labeling is not necessary and screen
readers pick up the correct prompts. For forms, however, "often" or
"usually" is not good enough. From controls must be correctly labeled so
that screen reader users can be absolutely confident that the prompt they
hear is in fact the intended prompt for each control, not a screen reader's
best guess.

WCAG20 SC 1.3.1 does address this issue:

"Information and relationships conveyed through presentation can be
programmatically determined, and notification of changes to these is
available to user agents, including assistive technologies"

However, I think the wording of 1.3.1 is too far removed from this very
serious problem and I think it should be addressed directly.

So Proposal:

22(n) For any interactive object, prompting information that is visually
evident can be programmatically determined.

The nature of the objects, their name, role and state, must be available
through other parts of the standards; this deals only with the "prompts" or
"cues".

Jim

Accessibility Consulting: http://jimthatcher.com/
512-306-0931

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 6:39 AM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 21 (l) and 22(n) accessible forms


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bailey Bruce [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 7:24 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 21 (l) and 22(n)
> accessible forms
>
> Andi asked:
> > Does anyone know why the Access Board thought that the other
> > provisions were insufficient for the special case of forms?

I think this was all about PDF at the time. Agencies were moving to PDF for
publishing documents and creating online forms. Some felt that an
accessible alternative could be demanded for the former, but not as easily
for the latter.

Note for how narrow a time window this "special" federal regulation was
actually needed: less than a year, certainly. We should make an effort to
present-proof as well as future-proof our recommendations.

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University