Thread Subject: Re: Suggested update to 6.1.I so we canremove6.1.B and 6.1.C (forms & scripting)

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: Peter Korn
Date: Wed, Jun 06 2007 3:20 PM

Hi Don,

Please see EWG 30May draft item 3.4.A
(http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_May_30#A._8), which covers the
situation of an AT being told about the label of the text field. I
quote the relevant text: "Software that provides user interface objects
... shall provide assistive technology with object information including
but not limited to... relationship this object has as a label for
another, or being labelled by another"

Yes, if the label is not programmatically associated with the edit box,
you have an accessibility problem. You would also have a Section 508
violation under this draft text.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> Andrew,
>
> 21(d) Sufficient information about a user interface element including
> the identity, operation and state of the element shall be available to
> assistive technology. . . . ."
>
> The main problem with this applying to forms is that it is too general
> and non-specific. For example, if I tab to an edit box, and just hear
> "edit," I know it is focusable; I know it is empty; and I know it is an
> edit box. It has met D as prescribed above. If however, if its label
> isn't programmatically associated with the edit box, I have no idea what
> to type into it. Meeting D isn't enough.
> Don Barrett
> Section 508 Coordinator
> U.S. Department of Education
> (202)-205-8245
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew
> Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 4:23 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Suggested update to 6.1.I so we
> canremove6.1.B and 6.1.C (forms & scripting)
>
> Allen,
>
>
>> What we don't have is something that states what standard must be met
>> for interface elements delivered that are not coded in HTML, or pure
>> software. PDF forms are not addressed directly to my knowledge,
>> neither would forms in Microsoft Word .doc format--or open-document
>> format for that matter.
>>
>
> In the current standard? Sure they are! You can debate whether PDF
> forms are a 1194.21 or 1194.22 item, but currently 21(d) would cover PDF
> form controls:
>
> 21(d) Sufficient information about a user interface element including
> the identity, operation and state of the element shall be available to
> assistive technology. When an image represents a program element, the
> information conveyed by the image must also be available in text.
>
> 22(n) When electronic forms are designed to be completed on-line, the
> form shall allow people using assistive technology to access the
> information, field elements, and functionality required for completion
> and submission of the form, including all directions and cues.
>
> 22(n) was replaced with something more like 21d, and since 22(n) is
> replacable with 21(d) it makes sense to remove 21(l) altogether, rather
> than keep the redundnacy.
>
>
>> I think we still need an overarching statement (somewhere) that says
>> content must meet (x,y,z). We have it for HTML and generalized
>> audio/video content, but not for anything else.
>>
>
> Where do you see it for HTML specifically?
>
>
>> I propose that this be the first item in
>> information/documentation/support, or included in functional
>> performance criteria, and forms should be explicitly mentioned to
>> eliminate any ambiguity about them.
>>
>
> I disagree. This is not about documentation, this is about web and
> software applications and their controls. The documentation section
> already refers to support of the relevant sections.
>
>
>> Question is as I read this, this requirement below is for web, not web
>>
>
>
>> and software both right?
>>
>
> Yes, but there is a nearly identical standard in software.
>
> AWK
>

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