E-mail List Archives

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

for

From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Mar 31, 2015 6:22AM


>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.

But it is still considered equivalent, although not the preferred method. I
point to the W3C doc and list provided earlier in this thread.

>It passes SC 4.1.2, which is specifically concerned about programmatically
exposed name, role and value.

So with the new document, 4.1.2 and 3.3.2 success criterion, in a way,
contradict each other. Part of me ask why list something that can be done.
but really should not be done?

--
Ryan E. Benson

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Patrick H. Lauke < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> P
> --
> 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
> > > > >