E-mail List Archives

Re: Complex use of Radio input

for

From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Nov 24, 2009 8:20AM


This is not my design, but an attempt top make a design accessible from a company looking to improve accessibility more accessible.

This type of layout is not uncommon in surveys developed for the web, where most "customers" of surveys want the look of bubble forms, and will look for a vendor who will give them what they want, most "customers" apparently prioritize visual layout over accessibility.

In this case the use of hidden labels is the only way we have found to make these forms accessible to speech users. The company said the "customers" were unwilling to change the visual layout.

I would be interested in learning about your ideas of making this form more accessible.

Jon

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:42:16 -0800
>From: Keith Parks < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Complex use of Radio input
>To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>
>
>On Nov 20, 2009, at 6:31 AM, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>
>> Mike,
>>
>> Here is an example of complex form accessibility using offscreen
>> labels:
>> http://html.cita.illinois.edu/nav/form/complex/index.php?example=2
>
>
>Sorry to reply to this rather late, but have you taken a look at that
>page with CSS off? =:^o
>
>Wow, what a nightmare. While technically it may meet the forms-
>accessibility guidelines (everything having a Label), it's hard to
>imagine it being *usable* by either a screen-reader user, or a user
>who replaced the default style sheet with their own for visual reasons.
>
>So it seems like on the practical side it would fail 508 (d).
>
>******************************
>Keith Parks
>Graphic Designer/Web Designer
>Student Affairs Communications Services
>San Diego State University
>San Diego, CA 92182-7444
>(619) 594-1046
>mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED>
>http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/communications
>
>http://kparks.deviantart.com/gallery
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
>Yes We Can!*
>
>*should not be interpreted to mean that we necessarily will
>
>