WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Are fieldset and legend still relevant?

for

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Dec 30, 2014 8:40AM

Hey guys

Joy, well said.
For the examples, at a glance.
Yes, the labeling in examples 2 and 3 works, and I would pass it.
However it has three drawbacks.
- Using aria-labelledby rather than the html labeling decreases the
clickable area of the radiobuttons (for users with dexterity
impairments larger clickable area is always a plus). When using label
for user can click on the label and focus moves into its associated
radiobutton. With aria-labeling this does not happen.

- Fielset/legend construct usually draws a visual box around the
legend and choices, which is good for users with cognitive
impairments. using ARIA group role does not do this, nor the aria
labeling, .. though the page designer can always create these types of
things using CSS anyway.

- this set up will force screen readers to read legend for every
single radiobutton choice, which can get very annoying when the legend
is very wrong.
Using fieldset/legend or corresponding ARIA group role users can
customize, at least to some degree, how often they want to hear the
legend.
I only want to hear it once, when focus moves into the radiobuttons.
I have not looked at Survey Monkey lately, but it used to drive me
bananas, apples and pairs, to try and take their surveys, because the
bloody question (and instructions sometimes) was read out in its
entirety before the label of any radiobutton choice.
Again, I do not know what they used there, I would have to go back,
check, and hope they have replaced whatever structure they used.


So, again, your way is not wrong, I would not fail it, but it has some
drawbacks that I would point out if I were doing an accessibility
assessment of the page, at least best practice items to discuss, not
outright violations.
Note though that I only took a quick look, it is one of those crazy
days at work, so I have not had time to analyze the code in any depth.

Cheers
-B

On 12/30/14, Thomas McKeithan II < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> I concur with Joy. We should determine conformance to the standards basd
> upon how the page is coded and not how a specific AT Tool behavors. For
> years I've advocated fot testing using AT Tools with the "out of the Box"
> settings rather than customizations.
>
> Respectfully,
> Thomas Lee McKeithan II
> QSSI
> http://www.qssinc.com
> 508 SME, SSQA Solutions Center
> 10480 Little Patuxent Pkwy , Suite 350
> Columbia , MD 21044
> (301 )977-7884 x1058 (Work)
> (202) 276-6437 (Cell)
>
>
> This electronic mail (including any attachments) may contain information
> that is privileged, confidential, and/or otherwise protected from disclosure
> to anyone other than its intended recipient(s). Any dissemination or use of
> this electronic email or its contents (including any attachments) by persons
> other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and
> delete the original message (including any attachments) in its entirety.
>
>
>