Re: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better?
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 with) it almost sounded as if 7 applied exclusively to the user agent's interface (chrome, dialogs, etc), leaving out the web content that is presented. Cheers, P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better?
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 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 a super-quick check? Patrick __ Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better?
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 - look at the User Agent Accessibility Guideilnes to see if this is *required* or optional. Mental note 2 - send something off to Dave Hyatt to find out if this can be/will be fixed. Oh, and if anyone wants to take care of those two mental notes above for me, that would be great as well... :) Best regards, Derek. -- Derek Featherstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 613-599-9784 1-866-932-4878 (toll-free in North America) Web Development: http://www.furtherahead.com Personal:http://www.boxofchocolates.ca ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better?
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 a super-quick check? Can't check Safari (no Mac here), but Konqueror 3.4.0 copes fine. Kind Regards, Joshua Street base10solutions Website: http://www.base10solutions.com.au/ Phone: (02) 9898-0060 Fax: (02) 8572-6021 Mobile: 0425 808 469 Multimedia Development Agency E-mails and any attachments sent from base10solutions are to be regarded as confidential. Please do not distribute or publish any of the contents of this e-mail without the sender’s consent. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to the e-mail, and then delete the message without making copies or using it in any way. Although base10solutions takes precautions to ensure that e-mail sent from our accounts are free of viruses, we encourage recipients to undertake their own virus scan on each e-mail before opening, as base10solutions accepts no responsibility for loss or damage caused by the contents of this e-mail. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better?
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 (!document.getElementsByTagName) return false;
var labels = document.getElementsByTagName(label);
for (var i=0; ilabels.length; i++) {
if (!labels[i].getAttribute(for)) continue;
labels[i].onclick = function() {
var id = this.getAttribute(for);
if (!document.getElementById(id)) return false;
var element = document.getElementById(id);
element.focus();
}
}
}
Call the function with your favourite addLoadEvent function or just use:
window.onload = focusLabels;
Of course, for most browsers, this function will make no difference
whatsoever: it's replicating the existing behaviour. But for the
exceptions like Safari, it will make *explicit* labels clickable.
--
Jeremy Keith
a d a c t i o
http://adactio.com/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
RE: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better?
(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 clickable labels at all. Not so cool. Mental note - look at the User Agent Accessibility Guideilnes to see if this is *required* or optional. UAAG are not my forte, but I think the closest it comes to this is Guideline 7. Observe operating environment conventions (though it only refers to the user agent interface, but I assume the rendered content of a web page is also covered by this?). 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. At least on Windows, that is the case. 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 request). Patrick __ Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better?
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 requirement, so it adds a bit more clout to the request). ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better?
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 System 8 (Mac OS 8). And no Safari doesn't do it. That is a bug I filed ages ago (when version 1.0 came out, iirc). According to recent blog postings they are working on form widgets, it would be about time they add this functionality. Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better?
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 request). Well, looking through the bugzilla entries for WebKit, I found a filed bug on the subject already http://bugzilla.opendarwin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3244 ...but I left my little mark nonetheless. Fingers crossed... Patrick __ Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better?
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 elements (9.1 Priority 1) 2) Allow the user to move the content focus to any enabled element (9.3 Priority 1) 3) Highlight enabled elements according to the granularity specified in the format. (10.2 Priority 1) HTML 4.01 provides a mechanism for explicit or implicit association between form control and associated labels. Each user agent has a default mechanism for rendering and/or indicating the focus of an enabled element. Authors may affect that rendering through the use of CSS. However, once a form control is labelled (implicitly or explicitly) does UAAG guideline 7 apply? Following OS conventions? -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better?
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 Behalf Of Rebecca Cox Sent: Tuesday, 2 August 2005 9:40 a.m. To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better? Hi all, Anyone happen to know if either of these methods is better? Eg screen reader wise? labelFirst name input type=text id=fname //label label for=fnameFirst name/label input type=text id=fname / Chrrs:) Rebecca ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better?
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. If it works with the visual design I usually use an explicit and implicit relationship. kind regards Terrence Wood. On 2 Aug 2005, at 9:56 AM, Kenny Graham wrote: As far as I know, they're both the same. The benefit of explicit labels is the freedom of where you place them in your HTML. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better?
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 the page -- label for=fooFoo input type=text id=foo name=foo //input clicking the label in the error message focuses the form control. The draw back is that you need to wrap the entire page in a form, instead of having it contained in a smaller block. T. On 2 Aug 2005, at 1:26 PM, Chris Kennon wrote: 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. If it works with the visual design I usually use an explicit and implicit relationship. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better?
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 control. The draw back is that you need to wrap the entire page in a form, instead of having it contained in a smaller block. I'd be careful with multiple labels when it comes to screenreaders as well. Need to do some testing, but I suspect it would possibly read all labels associated with a form element in source order (in your case, possibly foo foo). On the other hand, screenreaders may just read the last one in the series, which can also cause problems when relying on the multiple label method to provide different bits of label in different parts of the page, e.g. label for=nameYour name input type=text id=name name=name / /label and later on label for=name(required field)/label Ideally you want Your name (required), but screenreaders may read one or the other. As I said, needs testing, but just a word of caution... -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better?
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 name=foo / /input ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better?
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 submit button has its own *implicit* label already contained within it input type=submit value=implicit label / and does not need a label element. 2) when talking about labels associated with form controls, however, using a for attribute and related id is *explicit* label for=fooexplicit label/label input type=text id=foo name=foo / and not using for, but wrapping the form control inside the actual label element is what's referred to as *implicit* labelimplicit label input type=text name=foo //label 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 -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better?
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 labelled as part of the label's definition aren't the semantics of an implicit label just a little bit dubious (even if it does meet the DTD)? Peter -- Peter Asquith http://www.wasabicube.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better?
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 implicit label input type=text id=foo name=foo //label ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] implicit / explicit labels which is better?
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 label provides a target that can actually be clicked by most users. I've said this to many WSG members before -- providing for physical dissablities IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT -- they're far more common than people think. EG: I have incredibly shaky hands, yet I surf the web at home using a wacom tablet and a keyboard with my head approx 2 feet from the monitor. I can't click a radio button on the first attempt with that setup, but that's my setup and you have to account for freaks like me when designing :) My personal preference is to always use the 'belt and brace' method as I use the label as the container that lines up the label text and the input. This also means that the entire row for each element is clickable. w00t. [Hint: label text within a span can be vertically centered relative to the label using the vertical-align property ;) -Andrew http://leftjustified.net/ On 8/2/05, Chris Kennon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Thanks, the belt and brace approach being most secure? foo name=foo //label ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
