WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Relating answer options to their question


From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Aug 31, 2018 11:04AM

Hey Jared

I should've been more specific on this. ;) The setup may pass 1.3.1
but it would not pass 4.1.2, because the legend for the fieldset does
not translate into an accessible name for the checkbox control. Under
4.1.2, since a checkbox is an operable element, it has to have an
accessible name.

As we all know we can play WCAG interpretation gymnastics all day
*grin* I try to stay on the more pragmatic end of the spectrum, but I
personally am pretty insistent on 4.1.2 being met in all situations.

On 8/31/18, Jared Smith < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Birkir -
> Thanks for your thoughts on this. I agree that aria-describedby could
> be a 3rd option, though with the repetition issues you describe. This
> repetition, however, could not as easily be addressed at the AT level
> like it could for fieldset/legend or radiogroup.
>> As to your last question, I'd say that a legend is insufficient as a label
>> for a form control.
> The question wasn't really whether legend is sufficient as a label,
> but whether legend alone is sufficient to meet 1.3.1.
>> a legend does not translate to an accessible name for the checkbox,
>> only the <label> element (implicit or explicit) or the title attribute
>> can be used to assign an accessible name to a checkbox (or
>> aria-label/aria-labelledby of course). You can check the accessible
>> name and description algorithm for details .
> Right, but WCAG 1.3.1 does not require an accessible name or a label.
> It only requires that the "information, structure, and relationships
> conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined or
> are available in text." I can certainly argue that putting a text box
> in a fieldset provides a programmatic relationship. If it didn't then
> it would also be insufficient for a grouping of radio buttons, right?
> The legend also makes the information "available in text". Would this
> not be sufficient to meet 1.3.1?
> We would, of course, recommend fieldset/legend in this case, but it
> does, I think, pose an interesting WCAG interpretation question - and
> one that's currently very acute for one of our clients.
> Thanks,
> Jared
> > > > >

Work hard. Have fun. Make history.