In F111, similarly to the concern raised in #5279, the procedure includes "programmatically linked label" in the list of form controls. I find this wording ambiguous. My interpretation is that it refers to a label element that is programmatically associated with a form control (for example, through the for attribute or by nesting the control within the label). If that is the intended meaning, I think this wording may create unnecessary confusion for several reasons:
- a label is not itself a control. While an HTML label element can be associated with a form control and, when properly implemented, allows users to focus the associated control by clicking it, I would not consider the label itself to be a control; and the target of 2.5.3 is user interface component.
- the phrase "programmatically linked" is also potentially misleading. SC 2.5.3 is concerned with the text that is presented visually as the label, not with how that label is programmatically associated with the control. Referring to a "programmatically linked label" may therefore lead testers to focus on the association mechanism rather than on whether the visible label is reflected in the accessible name.
I suggest rewording this part of the procedure to avoid the ambiguity.
Additionally, I think the procedure could be simplified. It already states that the evaluation applies to all controls with a visible label, while step 1 subsequently asks the evaluator to verify:
The control has a visible text label.
This seems "redundant". If the intent is to limit the evaluation to controls with a visible text label (which is appropriate for SC 2.5.3), the procedure could simply begin with:
For each user interface component with a visible text label...
This would allow step 1 to be removed and would also simplify the "Expected Results" section
- If check # 1 is false, the Success Criterion does not apply.
- If check # 1 is true, but checks # 2 and/or # 3 are false, the content fails the Success Criterion.
- If all checks are true, the content passes the Success Criterion.
eliminating the need for the applicability check while making the procedure easier to follow
In F111, similarly to the concern raised in #5279, the procedure includes "programmatically linked label" in the list of form controls. I find this wording ambiguous. My interpretation is that it refers to a label element that is programmatically associated with a form control (for example, through the for attribute or by nesting the control within the label). If that is the intended meaning, I think this wording may create unnecessary confusion for several reasons:
I suggest rewording this part of the procedure to avoid the ambiguity.
Additionally, I think the procedure could be simplified. It already states that the evaluation applies to all controls with a visible label, while step 1 subsequently asks the evaluator to verify:
This seems "redundant". If the intent is to limit the evaluation to controls with a visible text label (which is appropriate for SC 2.5.3), the procedure could simply begin with:
This would allow step 1 to be removed and would also simplify the "Expected Results" section
eliminating the need for the applicability check while making the procedure easier to follow