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
] 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
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
