Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
However, once a form control is labelled (implicitly or explicitly)
does UAAG guideline 7 apply? Following OS conventions?
Sure, why wouldn't it?
That was my understanding as well, just wanted confirmation...reading
UAAG (which I'm admittedly unfamiliar
Andrew Krespanis
not adding a 'for' attribute kills half the purpose of
using a label 0_o
Without a for attrib, clicking the label will not affect
(focus/activate) the input element nested within.
Probably worth clarifying that this holds true only for our
good old friend Internet
On 8/2/05, Patrick Lauke wrote:
Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, K-Meleon all cope just as well with an
implicit label, making it clickable. Not sure about Safari...anybody
care to do a super-quick check?
From what I remember, Safari doesn't support clickable labels at all.
Not so cool. Mental note -
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 09:32 +0100, Patrick Lauke wrote:
Probably worth clarifying that this holds true only for our
good old friend Internet Explorer. Mozilla, Firefox, Opera,
K-Meleon all cope just as well with an implicit label, making
it clickable. Not sure about Safari...anybody care to do
Derek wrote:
From what I remember, Safari doesn't support clickable labels at all.
Not so cool.
That's right.
Here's a little bit of JavaScript that levels the playing field and
will make labels clickable in any DOM-capable browser:
function focusLabels() {
if
(copied to w3c-wai-ig for possible clarification of UAAG)
Derek Featherstone
Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, K-Meleon all cope just as well with an
implicit label, making it clickable. Not sure about Safari...anybody
care to do a super-quick check?
From what I remember, Safari doesn't support
yes, labels are clickable for system level checkboxes in MacOS X
(10.3.5 at least)
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
On 2 Aug 2005, at 9:54 PM, Patrick Lauke wrote:
+1 from me on that one. I'll email Dave later today (if people can
confirm
that it can be interpreted as a possible UAAG
On 2 Aug 2005, at 6:54 pm, Patrick Lauke wrote:
Now, as I'm not a Mac person I don't
know if OS X's system wide convention for checkboxes and such (in
things
like OS dialog boxes, for instance) is indeed that you can
click the label to activate/focus.
Oh, yes they are, at least since
Lauke Patrick
Mental note 2 -
send something off to Dave Hyatt to find out if this can be/will be
fixed.
+1 from me on that one. I'll email Dave later today (if
people can confirm
that it can be interpreted as a possible UAAG requirement, so
it adds a bit
more clout to the
Jim Allan wrote:
UAAG does not require explicit or implicit labeling of form controls. Nor
does the HTML 4.01 specification [1].
And we're not disputing that, as it's squarely a WCAG issue at that point.
UAAG requires that the user agent:
1) provide a content focus for enabled
I've read that we should avoid using implicit labels because, while it
shouldn't be any different, in testing it would appear screen readers
can struggle and output misleading info, etc.
/me goes off to find link
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Hi,
An example of this structure would prove enlightening.
C
On Aug 1, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
you score more points with Cynthia with explicit labels.
Explicit relationships means you can have more than one label for a
form control... and yes, you are allowed to do that.
Do you mean for using more than one label for a form? Note the explicit
and implicit relationship of the second label.
How about an an error message
!-- top of page --
pSorry, we were unable to process this form. Please check your value
for label for=foofoo/label./p
!-- snip, later in
Terrence Wood wrote:
!-- top of page --
pSorry, we were unable to process this form. Please check your value
for label for=foofoo/label./p
!-- snip, later in the page --
label for=fooFoo input type=text id=foo name=foo //input
clicking the label in the error message focuses the form
On Aug 1, 2005, at 7:02 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
Do you mean for using more than one label for a form? Note the
explicit and implicit relationship of the second label.
!-- snip, later in the page --
This would be explicit?
label for=fooFoo
And this implied?
input type=text id=foo
Chris Kennon wrote:
This would be explicit?
label for=fooFoo
And this implied?
input type=text id=foo name=foo /
It can be a tad confusing, as the spec itself
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/forms.html#h-17.9 uses implicit in
two different ways:
1) a form control such as a
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
The belt and braces approach when using labels is to make the label
both explicit (via for) *and* implicit (by wrapping the control in the
label)
label for=fooexplicit and implicit label input type=text id=foo
name=foo //label
By including the element being
Hi,
Thanks, the belt and brace approach being most secure?
C
On Aug 1, 2005, at 7:43 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
The belt and braces approach when using labels is to make the
label both explicit (via for) *and* implicit (by wrapping the
control in the label)
label for=fooexplicit and
Whooa nelly!
!important -- not adding a 'for' attribute kills half the purpose of
using a label 0_o
Without a for attrib, clicking the label will not affect
(focus/activate) the input element nested within. This is especially
important in the case of checkboxes and radio buttons as the
19 matches
Mail list logo
