W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > July 2008

inconsitency with G122

From: WCAG 2.0 Comment Form <nobody@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:22:48 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Message-Id: <20080724162248.E3DAF6B62C@tibor.w3.org>


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.
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2008 16:23:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 July 2011 06:13:26 GMT