Re: Firefox Accessibility Inspector reports placeholder attribute as eligible for accessible name

> but I believe we do at least partly agree here that the fact that it is
used as a last resort for the accessible name calculation is correct?
I think its ok for Firefox to present it as a last resort.
But it's still a failure of WCAG 3.3.2
Cheers,
David MacDonald
*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel: 613.235.4902
LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
twitter.com/davidmacd
GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
* Adapting the web to all users*
* Including those with disabilities*
If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:
> I think that the greatest problem with relying on placeholder is with
> 3.3.2 - I believe that the group felt that a label needs to be persistent
> and that the fact that a placeholder used as a label will disappear when
> the field is filled can trigger a failure.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Head of Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
> On 8/8/18, 15:27, "Jonathan Avila" <jon.avila@levelaccess.com> wrote:
>
> > We've identified that placeholder use as the sole form of labelling
> is strongly discouraged, but I believe we do at least partly agree here
> that the fact that it is used as a last resort for the accessible name
> calculation is correct?
>
> If it is a last resort for the accessible name -- then when only it is
> used the component still has an accessible name and assuming it's a
> meaningful name it passes WCAG. I don't agree with that putting in the acc
> name even as a last resort because it legitamizes it's use as an accessible
> name and makes it difficult for us to prevent it's use and proliferation.
> I'd prefer to see something like -- is not used in the accessible name
> calculation but browser's may expose it as fallback content.
>
> Jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 3:08 PM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Bug: Firefox Accessibility Inspector reports placeholder
> attribute as eligible for accessible name
>
>
>
> On 08/08/2018 19:46, Jonathan Avila wrote:
> >> And, in Firefox and Chrome at least (possibly others, no time to
> test) the placeholder IS exposed by the browser as the input's
> programmatically determinable / accessible name. So how is it failing?
> >
> > If the placeholder is exposed as the name but doesn't provide a name
> for the field but rather an example value then it would fail some SC
> because the programmatic name isn't a name but rather something else. In
> the same we would fail an input for date who's aria-label was "mm/dd/yyyy".
>
> Yes, but I was responding specifically to the example Glenda provided,
> where the placeholder was used with "First name" as value...
>
> Getting back to the original topic: placeholder is currently one of
> the
> last resort attributes used to provide an accessible name to a
> control,
> in the absence of anything more suitable like a <label>, an
> aria-label,
> aria-labelledby or even a title attribute.
>
> We've identified that placeholder use as the sole form of labelling is
> strongly discouraged, but I believe we do at least partly agree here
> that the fact that it is used as a last resort for the accessible name
> calculation is correct?
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>
>
>
>