Thread Subject: Re: Gaps in Webrequirements-errorhandlingtechniques
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: Fratkin, Mike
Date: Wed, Jan 10 2007 10:25 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: None
- Previous message in thread: None
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
It is not quire analogous as we have had problems with the skip working
but have not had problems with the error handling link.
Providing the right semantic information to the AT might be a good idea,
but what do we do for keyboard users not using AT? We should be looking
for functionality for all users with disabilities and not rely on the AT
to do everything like we are currently doing for keystrokes.
Mike
[Andi wrote:]
The idea of the Web author providing a means to skip directly to the
field in error is analogous to the "skip to main content" link. This
seemed like a good idea at the time but in our discussions in this
subcommittee, we have determined that it is not a good idea and doesn't
even work in some browsers. So I don't think we should now be advocating
for it for error handling.
It seems that if the AT could get the right semantic information as to
which fields are in error, it could provide a means for the user to
navigate directly to them. As part of the W3C ARIA work, new attributes
are being proposed for form fields. Two that I am aware of are the
"required"
attribute and the "invalid" attribute. So forms developers can indicate
which form fields are required and which ones are in error. Isn't
providing semantic information a better way to approach this issue?
Andi
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: None
WebAIM is an initiative of:
