WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: WCAG2: Form fields and labels

for

From: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
Date: Feb 6, 2015 8:33AM

Birkir,

I do agree with you on 4.1.1, and it is under what I call Broken Couplings,
if in fact it fails validation. I would also call out 1.3.1 and 4.1.2.



* katie *
 
Katie Haritos-Shea
Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
 
Cell: 703-371-5545 | <EMAIL REMOVED> | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile |
Office: 703-371-5545

-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Birkir R.
Gunnarsson
Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2015 9:42 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG2: Form fields and labels

Sorry, clicked "send" by mistake.
When I run this construct through a validator https://html5.validator.nu/ I
get the error
"Error: The for attribute of the label element must refer to a form
control."
I have really not used 4.1.1 much, so I absolutely agree, I would call this
under 1.3.1, but I thought that 4.1.1 could be used if the html fails
validation, but I culd very easily be wrong on that point.
The spec admittedly says:
"Parsing: In content implemented using markup languages, elements have
complete start and end tags, elements are nested according to their
specifications, elements do not contain duplicate attributes, and any IDs
are unique, except where the specifications allow these features.
(Level A) "
So while multiple IDs are clearly 4.1.1 violations, missing IDs are not
mentioned.
Thanks
-Birkir


On 2/5/15, Birkir R. Gunnarsson < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Greetings
>
> Andrew, quick question on 4.1.1
> I thought it could possibly fail 4.1.1 because the label tag
> references a non-existent ID attribute (assuming the typo is such as
> the for=ID value of the label tag points to an ID that does not exist
> on the page).
>
>
> On 2/5/15, Andrew Kirkpatrick < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>> Thanks both. I think I will fail it under 4.1.2 as well as 1.3.1 and
>> 4.1.1.
>>
>> I disagree that this would fail 4.1.1. The content can be parsed
>> correctly as written, it is just that there is an error in what is
>> written.
>> AWK
>> >> >> list messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>
>>
>
>
> --
> Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
>


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>