WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Use of label without input


From: Steve Green
Date: Nov 18, 2019 3:36AM

You're right, it's not happening with JAWS 2019, but it did happen with some previous versions. I don't know when they fixed it.


-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of Jonathan Cohn
Sent: 17 November 2019 00:22
To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Use of label without input

Is this still the case in JAWS 2019/2020? It was my understanding that JAWS generally uses the iAccessible2 protocol for both Chrome and Firefox. If this is true, I would not expect your described behavior to still occur.

> On Nov 16, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Steve Green < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Actually, it does cause an issue, which is caused by one of JAWS' heuristics. If a page contains a <label> element that is not programmatically associated with a labelable element, and the page also contains an unlabelled element that is labelable, JAWS uses the contents of the <label> element to label the other element.
> I have seen this many times, and at first I had no idea what was going on because the two elements were hundreds of lines apart in the DOM and there was no apparent relationship between them. However, it was easy to create a minimal test page to verify the theory.
> To the best of my knowledge, this issue does not occur with any other screen reader.
> Steve Green
> Managing Director
> Test Partners Ltd
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of
> glen walker
> Sent: 15 November 2019 21:00
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Use of label without input
> Yes, agreed. Unless they have a parsing issue such as using a <label> on a <fieldset>, I just shake my head and let it go.
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 12:41 PM Patrick H. Lauke
> wrote:
>> Even if it bugs you though, is it causing any kind of issue? It's
>> probably a mild case of using a slightly inappropriate element, but
>> not enough to, for instance, fail under WCAG 2.1 SC 1.3.1. To my
>> knowledge, it has no adverse effect per se, so beyond the "what
>> you're doing here is pointless", not sure there's any major reason for letting it slide.
>> P
>> --
>> Patrick H. Lauke
> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives