Skip to page content or skip to Accesskey List.
Search evolt.org
evolt.org login: or register

Work

Main Page Content

Hit and Miss with Section 508

Rated 3.8 (Ratings: 3) (Add your rating)

Log in to add a comment
(4 comments so far)

Want more?

 
Picture of OKolzig37

Ben Dyer

Member info | Full bio

User since: May 08, 2001

Last login: May 08, 2001

Articles written: 4

(Note: I have contacted the webmaster at the section508.gov web site and haven't received any response concerning these issues.)

In 1998, the U.S. Government drew up guidelines for accessibility for internet and IT initiatives within the Federal Government, known as Section 508. They have since set up a Section 508 web site to help government agencies meet the necessary guidelines. Unfortunately, a quick Bobby check shows that the Section 508 web site fails to achieve some of the guidelines they outline. Let's look at what they missed and what we can learn from it.

When electronic forms are designed to be completed on-line, the form shall allow people using assistive technology to access the information, field elements, and functionality required for completion and submission of the form, including all directions and cues.
Section 508, Part 1194.22, Paragraph n

Mistake 1: Explicitly associate form controls and their labels with the LABEL element.

Basically, every device must have some cue to associate any given form control with a label defining what it is. This is done, quite simply, by using the <label> tag around the text label of the form field, and adding the id attribute to the associated <input> or <select> tag.

<label for="first">First Name:</label><br>
<input type="text" name="first_name" id="first"
 value="First Name">

First Name:

This technique also has the added benefit in some browsers of allowing the text label to be clickable for some form elements, as has been described elsewhere on evolt.org.

Mistake 2: If there are logical groupings of form controls, use FIELDSET with LEGEND on each group.

This requires that groupings of form elements (usually meaning groups of radio buttons or check boxes) be marked as such using the &lt;fieldset&gt; and &lt;legend&gt; tags, like so:

<fieldset>

<legend>What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen
 swallow?</legend>

<input type="radio" name="velocity"
 id="velocity1"> <label for="velocity1">1.8
 m/s</label><br>
<input type="radio" name="velocity"
 id="velocity2"> <label for="velocity2">2.1
 m/s</label><br>
<input type="radio" name="velocity"
 id="velocity3"> <label for="velocity3">What do
 you mean, an African or a European swallow?</label><br>

</fieldset>

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? 1.8 m/s
2.1 m/s
What do you mean, an African or a European swallow?

The most immediately obvious change is that many browsers (IE5.X+ and NN6.X+) will render the &lt;fieldset&gt; tag by default with a border around the element. However, a CSS definition of border-width:0px will remove that.

Mistake 3: Include default, place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas.

This guideline is probably the most problematic of the three, because it can be at odds with usability. This states that since some devices will skip form elements that do not have a default value, that you predefine a default value for every form element. Obviously, this can cause problems with users unwittingly leaving default data in form fields. You could use JavaScript to empty out the form field using an onfocus attribute, but you don't want to rely on JavaScript exclusively (especially for accessibility purposes). The better solution would be to use JavaScript to empty the form field (which would be fine for most users) and then use a trimming function on the backend to remove excess whitespace.

Conclusion

I really don't mean to hang Section 508 out to dry. I am happy that the U.S. Government is making a concerted effort to push for accessibility on the internet. However, we need to be careful that as we promote accessibility online, our sites are also accessible.

If you are looking for further information on accessibility, and these rules in particular, see these sites:

Ben Dyer has been tinkering with computers his entire life (starting with a TI-99 around age 3), and has been doing internet stuff for around six years now. For five years (about two ice ages in internet time), he was Senior Internet Developer for Imaginuity Interactive, an internet development firm in Dallas, Texas, before leaving in March 2003 to co-found ToSon BT, a company that provides creative and technical services (presentations, audio/video, live shows, internet) for churches and ministries.

His personal projects include DFW Anime.com, which keeps track of anime goings-on in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex and Anime Blog Muyo! which is a group blog about anime. You can also read all about his nonexistant escapades (or at least find a bunch of stupid links) at his personal blog.

D'oh!

Submitted by OKolzig37 on February 26, 2002 - 17:44.

In an effort to try and discredit me, the U.S. Government has waited until the article went live to fix most problems with their web site (Mistake 2 is still there). Anyways, the rules are still valid, even though the example has been changed. :)

login or register to post comments

Any details on #3?

Submitted by simonc on February 26, 2002 - 19:30.

Do you have any more information on mistake number 3? Which devices does that cause a problem in?

login or register to post comments

Re: Any details on #3?

Submitted by OKolzig37 on February 27, 2002 - 15:36.

Quite frankly, no, I don't. The most I could find was in the WAI Guidelines which makes a mention of "legacy assistive technologies," whatever that means.

login or register to post comments

Mistake 3 Hack

Submitted by untorqued on June 13, 2002 - 10:34.

I just subjected one of my sites to the BOBBY validator today, and came across the lovely WAI Checkpoint 10.4 (aka, mistake #3 above).

The only form my site uses at the moment is a modified Google site search. I really want accessibility, and simply cannot stomach the huge usability obstacle of requiring users to delete text from the text box before entering a search phrase. (And in my limited experience, I don't have time to wrestle with JavaScript.)

But with Google (and probably searches in general), the search is unaffected by an extra space. So I set the field value to " ". I don't have access to a nonvisual device for testing, but I'm assuming this space counts as content.

I know this could mess things up when you're submitting order info or the like, but it's a hack for this one particular instance that seems to keep everyone happy.

login or register to post comments

The access keys for this page are: ALT (Control on a Mac) plus:

evolt.orgEvolt.org is an all-volunteer resource for web developers made up of a discussion list, a browser archive, and member-submitted articles. This article is the property of its author, please do not redistribute or use elsewhere without checking with the author.