Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?

Hello Andrew,
>>Yes, but to pass 3.3.2 you don’t necessarily need to have the label be programmatically associated with the control.
>><span>First name (required)</span><input type=“text”>

I agree, this code passes 3.3.2 for "First name" and fails 1.3.1 for
"First name" and 1.3.1 also for "required".
In the previous example #4 that had HTML5 "required" property, (or for
that matter aria-required=true) with no visual cue for mandatory
nature of the field, that code passes  3.3.2 because it has "First
name" as a label ... as stated in last email.
SC 1.3.1 does not apply for the mandatory nature of the field in this case.
Only if this info-relation were available visually by presentation,
1.3.1 would kick in to require that it be PD.
>> 1.3.1 requires that the equivalent information be available programmatically
Right bbut as I understand it, the reverse is not true.  WCAG 2.0 does
not require that something that is available programmatically is also
available visually /or by presentation, no?

Going back to the original question:
When error is encountered, identifying  invalid field and conveying
error message via text is covered by 3.3.1 and associating error
message with invalid field  by 1.3.1.
If these two SCs are met, there is no accessibility issue ... I think
Jonathan and James seeme to concur too based on their remarks above.
Also refer to G85. Example#3 of G85 and G83 are similar.
Neither G85 nor SCR 18 (related techniques) refer to 3.3.2.
Understanding 3.3.1 notes: "The identification and description of an
error can be combined with programmatic information that user agents
or assistive technologies can use to identify an error and provide
error information to the user". ... the reference is to 1.3.1
programmatic association.
So de-linking 3.3.2 from G83 (and H90 too) will make the WCAG2
documentation consistent with  what is documented elsewhere within
WCAG2 Understanding / Techniques doc IMO.
Thanks again for your time and responses.
Sailesh


On 2/12/16, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
>>Sorry I do not agree example 4 poses  a 3.3.2 issue because  I believe
>>we agreed,  examples 1 to 3 pass 3.3.2 with only "First name" inside
>>the label. This is still the case with example 4.
>
> Yes, but to pass 3.3.2 you don’t necessarily need to have the label be
> programmatically associated with the control.  1.3.1 requires that the
> equivalent information be available programmatically, but If I had this, I
> believe it would pass 3.3.2 and fail 1.3.1:
>
> <span>First name (required)</span><input type=“text”>
>
> AWK
>

Received on Sunday, 14 February 2016 18:31:41 UTC