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 required. Just a thought.
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.
They do not change the way text within strong elements are announced,
but neither do they do it for <em> or <b> or <i> etc.
JAWS does have a speech and sound scheme that includes modified
announements of italicised or bolded text (amogst other things), this
is not a default scheme, though and is provided for tasks such as
proofreading. but this facility is based on how the text is rendered
on screen, not on how it is marked up.
bottom line is that for users these screen readers using strong as an
indication of a required field won't be of any help.
On 25/02/2008, *tee* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 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 monitoring over the
form script I use, I then learned that despite the indication that
"asterisk" is marked as required field", many people who took time to
submit the forms on clients' sites still missed the "*". Because I
use no JS validation for the form, I decided to bold the required
field using strong element for two new sites. It seems working as the
bold texts caught people attention and I received no errors email
notification on missing to enter requried fields. The result also gave
me a though on how screen readers treat the strong element and that
it's indeed more accessible and semantically correct.
Working on a site, and thanks to Matt Fellows and his futher
assistance, I implemented his JS form validation script to the web
form. Using "asterik " to indicate the required field no longer is an
issue with JS validation, however I decided to stick with the strong
element. Much work had put into it to modify the code and css, but
client came back to me to want the '*' over the <strong> because it's
a conventional practice.
Really want to stick with the strong element for the reason above,
however I am also doubting my conclusion that it's more accessible
for screen readers as I never tested on one. Before I try to convince
client the strong element is better approach, I would love to hear
your opinion.
Thank you!
tee
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*******************************************************************
--
with regards
Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium
www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> | www.wat-c.org
<http://www.wat-c.org>
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
--
Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ <http://www.arwebdesign.net>
Phone: 859.816.7955
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
