E-mail List Archives

Re: Name, Role, Value and Labels or Instructions techniques...


From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mar 31, 2015 6:02AM

On 31/03/2015 12:41, Ryan E. Benson wrote:
> Patrick, I am pretty sure Mallory is asking in general, *not* /this/ exact
> situation. Frankly I have the same feelings as her. One of the things about
> WCAG is it was supposed to be AT gnostic. It isn't now, sadly, in my eyes.
> By saying @title is equivalent to label, we can have a form without any
> text shown and it wouldn't flag any errors if all the needed text is in
> @title.

We are not saying that @title is equivalent to label, we are saying that
@title provides a programmatically associated name that gets exposed to
AT in the same way that label does. It passes SC 4.1.2, which is
specifically concerned about programmatically exposed name, role and value.

As already noted, *just* having @title and no visible text that labels a
form control would pass 4.1.2, *but* it will fail SC 3.3.2. So the end
result is still that it would overall not comply with WCAG 2.0.

Again, not every SC addresses all forms of ability/disability. 4.1.2 is
almost exclusively aimed at AT support, for instance. What matters is
that there are enough complementary SCs that cover similar problems from
the different ability/disability/AT/non-AT viewpoints to ensure that
overall, something that doesn't work for a particular type of user
doesn't slip through the overall WCAG 2.0 assessment.

Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke