i have written up results from some tests i carried out:
Screen Readers lack emphasis - http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/?p=41
On 27/02/2008, tee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Steven,
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2008, at 6:49 AM, Steven Faulkner wrote:
>
> > don't know if this has been pointed out yet
Hi Steven,
On Feb 26, 2008, at 6:49 AM, Steven Faulkner wrote:
don't know if this has been pointed out yet, but as far as screen
readers like JAWS and Window Eyes are concerned the strong element
does not convey any meaning. It is not recognised by them.
bottom line is that for users thes
Something quick I just thought of was that you could use some small icon
to indicate required fields, and specify the alt for that to say
"required". That way, sighted users don't have to look at the word
"required" repeated 50 times, while unsighted users will be able to hear
that the field is
don't know if this has been pointed out yet, but as far as screen readers
like JAWS and Window Eyes are concerned the strong element does not convey
any meaning. It is not recognised by them.
They do not change the way text within strong elements are announced, but
neither do they do it for or o
Hi Matt,
I guess I would prefer verbose and have them fill the
form out once than have them have them misinterpret
and have to fix errors, [...]
I agree.
[...] which I imagine can be tedious
using a screen reader. Is this the case?
Can be a horror show. My understanding is that client side
Thanks Mike. I guess I would prefer verbose and have them fill the
form out once than have them have them misinterpret and have to fix
errors, which I imagine can be tedious using a screen reader. Is this
the case?
It would be great if you could keep us posted about any feedback you
get in March w
Hi Matt,
that the following legend is
superflous and prevents logical grouping.
Required
Name (required)
Email (required)
I agree, actually. With that example (and the image one I gave) using the
word required, in the case of a user listening with a setting that reads the
legends
02/2008 01:14 PM
Please respond to
wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
To
wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
cc
Subject
Re: [WSG] strong element being more semantical and accessible for required
field
> In some cases that's an excellent solution (what I've been using for a
> while) but unfortun
> In some cases that's an excellent solution (what I've been using for a
> while) but unfortunately power users will dial down verbosity so much that
> they will quiet legends as well.
>
> A blind power user I know told me * is best. He also told me nothing else is
> needed, but he's a person and
On Feb 25, 2008, at 4:55 PM, Darren Lovelock wrote:
I believe a more semantically correct method would be to use strong:
Email: (Required)
Same here.
One of the reason I dislike using fieldset is that FF and IE are both
buggy with the legend. If a form needs extra visual styling, it tak
On Feb 25, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Jason Pruim wrote:
I can't speak for screen readers since I've never used one my
self... But would there be any reason you couldn't do both and
please the client and the screen reader(assuming it does help them)?
a simple * First Name
Just something I though
Darren Lovelock wrote:
I believe a more semantically correct method would be to use strong:
Email: (Required)
Indeed, that's the approach I've taken in recent years. For aesthetic
considerations, I sometimes style drop in a style like
label strong { font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.75em
Hi Mike,
> > What about using a fieldset with *legend* if the
> > required fields can be grouped together. Because
> > the legend (required fields) would be read aloud
> > before each label.
>
> In some cases that's an excellent solution (what I've been using for a
> while) but unfortunately powe
What about *?
tee wrote:
I have this question about "strong element being more semantical and
accessible for required field" in the web form and like to hear your
opinion.
I came to the conclusion after conducting my little user testing - it
first started with an intention of spam and error
: 26 February 2008 00:02
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] strong element being more semantical and accessible for
required field
> On Behalf Of russ - maxdesign
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 1:37 PM
> To: Web Standards Group
> Subject: Re: [WSG] strong elemen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 7:01 PM
Subject: RE: [WSG] strong element being more semantical and accessible for
required field
On Behalf Of russ - maxdesign
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 1:37 PM
To: Web Standards Group
Subject: Re: [WSG] strong element being
> What about using a fieldset with *legend* if the required fields can be
> grouped together.
> Because the legend (required fields) would be read aloud before each label.
I thought about this, but I think it makes more sense to have related
elements grouped together and in most cases not all of
> On Behalf Of russ - maxdesign
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 1:37 PM
> To: Web Standards Group
> Subject: Re: [WSG] strong element being more semantical and accessible for
> required field
>
> > I can't speak for screen readers since I've never used one my
I agree with Jason, why not use both!
There's something to be said about only using an * approach to indicate a
mandatory field. In a recent project, even when explicitly saying on the
screen that * means mandatory, the user still got it wrong.
Providing a visual clue is a very good approach to
th
Interesting indeed!
Actually Tee I was going to pose the same question to the list
following our discussions the other day :) I would like to get it
right in GValidator so the core doesn't need to be modified by clients
such as yourself.
I would like to see the results of reliable and publicly av
> I can't speak for screen readers since I've never used one my self...
> But would there be any reason you couldn't do both and please the
> client and the screen reader(assuming it does help them)? a simple
> * First Name
>
> Just something I thought of :)
Interesting discussion. You could also
On Feb 25, 2008, at 3:34 PM, tee wrote:
I have this question about "strong element being more semantical and
accessible for required field" in the web form and like to hear your
opinion.
I came to the conclusion after conducting my little user testing -
it first started with an intention
22 matches
Mail list logo
