Does a placeholder on an <input> without a <label> pass WCAG? From my assessment I would say technically yes...but please don't do it!
...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Although I totally agree that placeholders shouldn't be used instead of labels I came to one case which I think is exception - message input. In the case of an message input where it's clear that it's a message input you don't need a visible label, and the placeholder value of "Message" is there with enough color contrast. Then having an aria-label of "Message" can just make the screen readers to read the same thing twice. (Didn't test it in other screen readers, but VoiceOver is smart enough to not read it twice). And the thing is that if you enter some text inside, focus out of the input and then back in, the placeholder will still be announced, so there is no issue.
There is no issue if you have no impairments. But if you are highly anxious, have a learning difficulty etc. then it is beneficial to have an always visible label on the input.
With that being said, the example you used would be fine (as lets face it, that interface is very confusing in of itself so the message input is the least of our concerns there), similarly it is widely accepted that "search" is fine to not have a visible label if there is a search icon next to it (but yet again, it would be beneficial to have one if you can design it in.).
The advice here is for forms with more than a single input really, but you should always try to have a visible label to minimise confusion, increase the tap target area etc. etc.
That is a screenshot from the Whatsapp, but this is how it looks pretty much the same for every other chat app out there. So this would mean that there is no single chat app that is accessible? There are other things where Whatsapp fails (having the same icon for sent and delivered status, so they rely on color alone to convey the information) but for the standard message input (I'm talking here also about emoji picker/attachments) I don't know what is confusing? If there would be visible labels for every action it will take a lot of space and it will be everything cluttered which will as a result lead for even worse experience for everyone.
Accessibility is a scale, and there is no such thing as perfect. The whole thing is about balance.
So in the WhatsApp keyboard there are loads of things that make it less accessible.
Some people cannot recognise iconography and interpret that, so most of the different functions become a guessing game as to what does what.
Some people are highly anxious, so that interface is both overwhelming and also adds a lot of uncertainty (if I click this button, will it send something I don't want it to?) - this is similar with that input box, if the "label" disappears and I go do something else, I may be worried about what information is in that box. (it is worth noting as this is single use and a single input, that is less of a concern, and that is where the balance comes in).
So although for you that interface is fine, for some people it is a nightmare, overwhelming and anxiety inducing.
So that is where a designer / developer should ask themselves questions like:
So the fun part of accessibility is always trying to find a balance between all of these things (and much more) so that you don't make things worse!
The biggest thing I would say about that interface is that an option to have a different layout (that may be larger) coupled with a visible "help" button that I can re-reference would be beneficial not just for those with accessibility needs, but also for those learning the interface for the first time (as you could show the icon next to the text in a list for example). So you could improve UX for everybody.
Just thoughts off the top of my head, but I hope it gives you an idea of how you can think outside of the established norms at ways to make better interfaces while using accessibility as a good guide.
I think you are misunderstanding WCAG 3.3.2. The sentence that you used to rule it out does not support your argument. That sentence is about the underlying programmatic association of the visible label with the input, which is covered under 1.3.1. But it doesn't let you get away with not having a visible label. The consensus of accessibility professionals is that 3.3.2 requires a label to be visible at all times. Using placeholder text as the only visible label does not meet that requirement, and thus fails 3.3.2.
You misunderstood why I included that point. That point immediately ruled it out as the answer as it means that there is no need for a label to be marked up in a particular way or identified in a particular way. So a placeholder works fine, even though it’s placement within the control makes it useless. A placeholder fulfils the main requirements of that SC and so I was hoping there would be an association element that would help here, that sentence ruled that out.
There is nothing else in 3.3.2 that states it must be visible at all times, despite what we may all agree it should be.
The point of the article was * technically * and I still think under 2.2 it would still technically pass, even if it makes me cry! 🤣💗
"...as it means that there is no need for a label to be marked up in a particular way or identified in a particular way."
That's not what that sentence is saying. You are forgetting the end of that sentence: "this aspect is covered separately by 1.3.1: Info and Relationships." That sentence is saying that if a visual label is not programmatically associated with its input then you fail it under 1.3.1, not 3.3.2. In other words, it's telling you that 3.3.2 only concerns itself with the appearance of a visual label. If the label is there, then 3.3.2 is fulfilled. This technicality has nothing to do with whether a placeholder is considered an adequate label, so you can't use it to automatically rule out 3.3.2.
If you want to argue that your interpretation of 3.3.2 allows you to use a placeholder for a label, that's fine, but you will definitely be in the minority.
We are talking at cross purposes (and that is my fault).
You picked up the key point, it is just whether a label is there…which it is when the placeholder is present.
I was hoping that this point would have something that would mean positioning, markup etc. would rule a placeholder out and it does, as you said, not.
So 3.3.2 was not our redemption and did not rule the placeholder out.
I think, however, we are that “deep in the weeds” now that the original point of the article is lost: if I can argue that placeholder text passes WCAG and that is technically a pass, then that is a problem of clarity in WCAG on a point that we all agree should be very simple to answer. 💗
In my personal a11y rules, placeholders should only ever contain the default values of optional fields. That's the only place they make perfect sense. Otherwise, just use a label. There is one exception, though: an
<input type="search" placeholder="Search…">, which is already rather accessible on its own (though it may profit from a separate button).Yeah search is one of those weird exceptions to a visible label, but even then
aria-label="search the site"is advised.Actually a better way is to do it "properly" and do:
Or use the floating label technique (where the label moves up when the field is focused) if space / design allows.
I seriously do hope that somebody can find the missing sentence that explicitly states that you must not use a
placeholderand must have a<label>.If you do let me know and I will update the article!
I think you're dismissing 3.3.2 incorrectly. It says that the label needs to be provided, it just doesn't require that it be marked up correctly, because that requirement is elsewhere. And a placeholder cannot provide a label because it is unavailable once the user starts entering data into the field.
It doesn't actually state a label must be provided though, it states labels or instructions.
There is no real definition of an instruction so a
placeholdercould do.Also when it points you to 1.3.1 that only wants a label to be programatically determinable (which we established a
placeholderis).It also doesn't state a label must always be visible.
I know I am being pedantic and silly but I still find it amazing that I can even argue the point in the first place!
And if we go down this route focusing on 3.3.2 as the centre of our argument then
could pass all criteria (I would have to have a think about it as info and relationships might now make the above a fail), and that is nearly as bad!
This is pretty funny ( :
I did find that the HTML Living Standard explicitly says , but that's not WCAG, so yeah ^^'
Yes and the HTML spec is actually referenced in WCAG on that exact point. But then it goes on to say that a label in that Success Criterion is not the same as a
<label>and ruins it! 🤣I covered that in 2.5.3 as it amazed me that it was so close to being definitive and then back tracked on it!
I have added a massive disclaimer just so people don't get the wrong idea. I realised that I didn't cover that you shouldn't do this until a few paragraphs in and if skim reading you might miss it.
It now has pride of place at the start of the article so I hope that clarifies! Thank you for pointing it out!
Sorry I really must make my article more clear, this is purely about technicalities and not whether you should or shouldn’t do it.
You should always have a label and unless completely necessary it should always be visible (I.e. an actual label element properly associated with the input)
Do not just use a placeholder alone!!!!!!!
No and I would hope it wouldn't!
But that isn't the point of the article.
For example what rule are the accessibility validators and testers citing when it says it fails? I can almost guarantee they point to one of the 6 Success Criterion I mentioned.
It is more of a thought experiment / critique than something you should actually be doing! (and I really I hope I made that clear otherwise I am adding to the problem instead of just writing an interesting (to me) article🤣 )
It can't be that difficult to write "an
<input>should always have a correctly associated<label>or at the very least make use of WAI-ARIA to label the input. For example using eitheraria-labeloraria-labelledbywould be sufficient even if a visible and native<label>is strongly encouraged and preferred."If you enter a field with a default value in it, your input could be appended, which might be unexpected behavior and even more confusing than a placeholder that vanishes if you enter something else.
I think @codingsafari meant you should use a real world example of valid input as your placeholder text.
I would say you are both right depending on the circumstances.
So for a search box "Search...." might be applicable (a generic instruction) whereas for a "first name" field it might be better to have "e.g. Mike, Sarah etc." as the placeholder (providing an example of valid input).
For a normal input field, the following is "the ideal" Markup
As the instructions are visible and clear in the
<p>, which is correctly read after the label for screen readers usingaria-describedbyand we have linked the label to the input correctly (so you can click it to focus the input and screen readers get the info) theplaceholderis ideal for an example of valid input.Also as I said in the article, using old school
forattributes on the label is more robust due to issues with voice control software and implicit (wrapped) labels!Problem solved, right? 🙃
Well if you are going to use a
labelthat is cheating!I both love (for the technicality part of it) and hate this at the same time (as somebody is bound to think this is a good idea lol).
I think this also technically passes, even if I do hate it so so much and want to burn it with 🔥