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 9:04AM

Hey Lynn

Absolutely, well spoken, the third example does look the best, and
having the most appropriate label first allows you to quickly skip
what you are not interested in rather than listening to it.

Honestly what we need to do more of, as a group, is to actively
request fixes in our assistive technologies, rather than forcing
ourselves and others to keep coding around individual bugs or
questionable interpretations.

But in the meantime we need to code pages in such a way as to be
accessible to the largest group of users, at least when we have the
luxury of doing so.
We can't require people to do so .. i.e. if their code is compliant
with the standard, they may simply not have time, resources or
interest to make the perfect page, but we always celebrate it when
people can do that, and we definitely do well to at least propose how
it can be done.
Cheers and thanks for the examples, I will look at the page in more
detail later.


On 12/30/14, Lynn Holdsworth < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Hi Birkir,
>
> Example 3 has a fieldset/legend, some ARIA labels and an explicitly
> associated label. So you still get the box drawn around the group as
> well as the clickable labels.
>
> As regards the third drawback, I take your point there. Even if the
> labels are ordered in a way that causes the most important one to be
> spoken first, one must still wait until all labels are read out before
> being able to hear the type and state of the control. It's possible to
> customise JAWS and possibly other screenreaders to speak control type
> and state first, but most users are unlikely to know how to do this.
>
> Using a fieldset and legend seems to have the same drawback. I can't
> find a way using VoiceOver to read the legend, nor in JAWS to only
> read it once when an item in the group receives focus.
>
> So on balance I'd still propose that the combo in example 3 is the
> most comprehensive solution.
>
> Kind regards, Lynn
>
> On 30/12/2014, Birkir R. Gunnarsson < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>