I can't generalise about screen readers, but JAWS would read the legend as if it were any other paragraph i.e. it would not differentiate it from the other text in the way it does with headers. The user may or may not work out for themselves that it is the start of a new section of content.
JAWS' behaviour in 'forms mode' is moot because it can only enter 'forms mode' when a form control has focus. If there are no form controls it can't enter 'forms mode'. It could enter 'forms mode' if there are form controls elsewhere on the page, but that won't matter because in 'forms mode' the focus can only move between links and form controls so the legends won't be read unless there actually is a form control in a fieldset. The bottom line is that there will be no adverse behaviour but all the benefits of using headers (e.g. navigation and indication of structure) will be lost. Steve -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Buchanan Sent: 06 June 2007 02:28 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form? > "The FIELDSET element allows authors to group thematically related > controls and labels. Grouping controls makes it easier for users to > understand their purpose while simultaneously facilitating tabbing > navigation for visual user agents and speech navigation for > speech-oriented user agents. The proper use of this element makes > documents more accessible." I think the first and last sentence make it clear that the intention is for fieldset to be used in forms. Although it does not explicitly say "...and nowhere else" it's pretty clear where the writers *did* mean it to be used. > For a comparison, the w3schools site defines fieldset as "The fieldset > element draws a box around its containing elements." And that's the > complete sentence. Note no mention of form controls. A third party's description of the spec is not the spec; in discussions about the spec we have to go to the real source, not an interpretation of the original. > I realise that many of the people here take pleasure in the pedantic > application of standards, and I'll state for the record that I agree > with the concept of the semantic web. It's interesting to see where standards advocates call each other "pedantic". Meanwhile the rest of the industry would consider pretty much everyone on this list to be pedants of the first degree because they care about standards at all. So realistically, application of standards has to be "pedantic" otherwise it's not application of standards at all - it's picking and choosing. Still, it cannot be denied that we get awfully bogged down in the minutiae sometimes :) > But I am a pragmatic coder and if > I wish to group thematically related elements (*not* necessarily form > controls), then I'm free to use the fieldset if I wish to. My opinion is that you are not free to do so. Fieldsets were clearly intended to be used in forms and the spec does not suggest using them anywhere else. You're using the absence of an explicit prohibition as permission. > Sure a DIV > would work. But a DIV is void of semantic. It's the refuge of the > unimaginative who want to wrap everything in excess tags with no > semantic meaning just to hang CSS off. To me, a fieldset is obviously > the correct semantic here. Well it has already been pointed out that DIV does have semantic significance - it adds structure by containing parts of the page. It's just used so heavily that we tend to forget it has a real, live meaning :) The only major difference between DIV and FIELDSET the way you propose is that FIELDSET renders a box by default. A key point that doesn't seem to have come up is that in the real world screen readers make use of fieldsets in a way which assumes they're in a form. The legend can be vocalised together with labels to provide full context. Unfortunately I don't have a screen reader handy to test what it does with a fieldset that's not in a form; but I would be concerned that it could get really confusing for form elements to crop up in the middle of general content. I won't speculate any further, but if anyone has a screen reader handy, perhaps they could shed some light on this? cheers, Ben -- --- <http://weblog.200ok.com.au/> --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
