E-mail List Archives
Thread: Forms: Explicit associations and Empty controls?
Number of posts in this thread: 6 (In chronological order)
From: Thomas Jedenfelt
Date: Mon, May 23 2005 2:07PM
Subject: Forms: Explicit associations and Empty controls?
No previous message | Next message →
Hello everyone,
Today's Web browsers, do they have support for:
1) Explicit associations between labels and form controls?
2) Handle empty controls correctly?
If so, I would no longer have to use the interim techniques [1] described in the checkpoints 10.2 and 10.4 of the WCAG 1.0 (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, 05-May-1999).
Regards,
Thomas Jedenfelt
[1] Interim solutions (10.2 and 10.4)
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/#gl-interim-accessibility
--
_______________________________________________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com
Powered by Outblaze
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mon, May 23 2005 2:10PM
Subject: Re: Forms: Explicit associations and Empty controls?
← Previous message | Next message →
Thomas Jedenfelt wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Today's Web browsers, do they have support for:
> 1) Explicit associations between labels and form controls?
> 2) Handle empty controls correctly?
>
> If so, I would no longer have to use the interim techniques [1] described in the checkpoints 10.2 and 10.4 of the WCAG 1.0 (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, 05-May-1999).
Yes on both accounts, but I can't think of a situation where
(particularly nowadays, using CSS) you'd need to circumvent 10.2...
--
Patrick H. Lauke
_____________________________________________________
re
From: Paul Bohman
Date: Mon, May 23 2005 2:23PM
Subject: Re: Forms: Explicit associations and Empty controls?
← Previous message | Next message →
Thomas Jedenfelt wrote:
> Today's Web browsers, do they have support for:
> 1) Explicit associations between labels and form controls?
> 2) Handle empty controls correctly?
>
> If so, I would no longer have to use the interim techniques
>[1] described in the checkpoints 10.2 and 10.4 of the WCAG 1.0
>(Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, 05-May-1999).
In terms of Web accessibility, Web browser support for explicit
associations between labels and form controls is less important than
screen reader support, which does exist. In this sense, the "interim"
solution of placing text labels adjacent to the form control is no
longer necessary, *BUT* it is still advisable.
When users do not use the tab key to go from form element to form
element, they will hear the content of the page read to them in a
linearized order. If the text label is not adjacent to the form control,
users may not realize which form control the text label applies to, or
vice versa.
To put it differently, the explicit association of the label with the
form control works very well when the user *tabs through* the form, even
when the label and form element are in completely different parts of the
page; but such a separation is still a problem if the user just *listens
to the page straight through* without interacting with the form (i.e.
tabbing between form elements).
So it's still a good idea to place the label adjacent to the form control.
--
Paul Bohman
Director of Products and Services
WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind)
www.webaim.org
Utah State University
www.usu.edu
From: Thomas Jedenfelt
Date: Mon, May 23 2005 3:00PM
Subject: Re: Forms: Explicit associations and Empty controls?
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Patrick,
Thanks for the quick reply.
Let's see if I have understood WCAG 1.0 correctly:
Checkpoint 10.2 does not suggest to circumvent explicit associations between labels and form controls.
10.2 suggests a fall back by way of containing the INPUT and the description text within the LABEL element, while still declaring (explicit association) the attributes 'for' (LABEL) and 'id' (e.g. INPUT)
Example:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#forms-specific
In what way would CSS improve/aid(?) explicit associations between labels and form controls?
Could you point to a section in the CSS Specification?
Regards,
Thomas Jedenfelt
>
> Yes on both accounts, but I can't think of a situation where
> (particularly nowadays, using CSS) you'd need to circumvent 10.2...
>
> -- Patrick H. Lauke
--
_______________________________________________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com
Powered by Outblaze
From: Thomas Jedenfelt
Date: Mon, May 23 2005 3:08PM
Subject: Re: Forms: Explicit associations and Empty controls?
← Previous message | Next message →
I did not state the correct Web address for my example.
This is the right one:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#forms-labels
Sorry,
Thomas Jedenfelt
--
_______________________________________________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com
Powered by Outblaze
From: Thomas Jedenfelt
Date: Mon, May 23 2005 3:33PM
Subject: Re: Forms: Explicit associations and Empty controls?
← Previous message | No next message
I have misunderstood Patrick H. Lauke's reply.
(http://www.webaim.org/discussion/mail_message.php?id=6681)
>
> Yes on both accounts, but I can't think of a situation where
> (particularly nowadays, using CSS) you'd need to circumvent 10.2...
>
> -- Patrick H. Lauke
I understand now that he means that it is good practice to follow Checkpoint 10.2. That is, to place the description text (label) next to the form control.
Example:
<LABEL for="firstname">First name:
<INPUT type="text" id="firstname" tabindex="1">
</LABEL>
I will read Paul Bohman's reply after a good night's sleep.
Regards,
Thomas Jedenfelt
--
_______________________________________________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com
Powered by Outblaze