You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The annotation kit does a great job documenting input attributes, but currently misses an important semantic dependency: the label–input relationship.
In the current UI, inputs (text, checkbox, radio, etc.) are shown with extensive attribute details (type, required, autocomplete, etc.), but there’s no clear indication whether an input has an associated label or where its accessible name comes from.
It would be really helpful to make designers and developers more aware that an input can’t really exist without a label, and to surface that relationship more explicitly in the annotations.
A possible solution could be something simple, like adding a label section at the top of the input details.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
The annotation kit does a great job documenting input attributes, but currently misses an important semantic dependency: the label–input relationship.
In the current UI, inputs (text, checkbox, radio, etc.) are shown with extensive attribute details (type, required, autocomplete, etc.), but there’s no clear indication whether an input has an associated label or where its accessible name comes from.
It would be really helpful to make designers and developers more aware that an input can’t really exist without a label, and to surface that relationship more explicitly in the annotations.
A possible solution could be something simple, like adding a label section at the top of the input details.
All reactions