inconsitency with G122

Name: Andrew Arch
Email: andrew@w3.org
Affiliation: W3C
Document: TD
Item Number: G14
Part of Item: Examples
Comment Type: technical
Summary of Issue: inconsitency with G122
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
I was looking at WCAG 2.0 forms techniques to see what might apply to older users - went to two different techniques places and found different suggestions in the examples:



http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20080430/G14.html

Example 4 recommends an "*" for required fields



http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20080430/G122.html

Example 1 illustrates the better practice of using words (albeit an abbreviation) and recommends "(req)" for required fields



The literature is reporting that older users often have difficulty with the "*" solution (as do/did WindowsEyes users and also others with low-vision). Also, better than "(req)" is "(required)" for required fields - no one should be confused then.

Proposed Change:
Both examples should preferably use "(required)", in addition to colour, to indicate mandatory fields.