Thread Subject: Re: 1194.22(n)
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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Dec 14 2006 6:40 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: None
- Previous message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: 1194.22(n)"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
If I understand this correctly -- they are not part of the human interface
so are not subject to that provision.
If they are not visible and are just used to carry data by the program then
they are not 'non-text' elements of the user interface. They are not part
of what the user experiences.
PS in sufficient techniques you cannot change the original success
criterion. You can't make it narrower or broader or create exemptions. You
can list things that already meet (or fail) the sc as it was originally
written - so that people have examples of things that pass (or fail).
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Hoffman, Allen
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:59 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] 1194.22(n)
> victor Tsaran wrote:
> "Labeling hidden INPUT fields would compromise the purpose of
> this control. Hidden INPUT fields are intended to pass
> information onto server side scripts for further processing.
> So, what's the use in labeling them?
> Thanks, so far we are confirming my understanding.
> One argument for this was that hidden form elements are by
> definition of HTML a non-text element, and therefore are
> subject to "alt text". What i don't know is if in the HTML
> spec if you can use alt attributes on such elements.
> Where is this going?
> Well, eventually if we do the sufficient techniques thing, we
> can include such specific guidance there--"Note: Form type =
> hidden does
> *not* need alt text of other alternative labeling". Or, we
> might even be able to sneak that exception into the specific
> standard, if we all don't feel that is too proscriptive.
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: 1194.22(n)"