Re: Indicating required fields mandatory or not (SC 3.3.2 or 2.4.6)

Hi all,

Anyone else have some input on this? It would help a lot in how to
interpret 3.3.2 when performing a site evaluation.

Gerard


Op do 1 aug. 2019 08:36 schreef Gerard Copinga <gerard@technobility.nl>:

> Thanks everyone for your reactions so far. But, wether the conformance
> testing is in any kind in regard to legislation or not, the outcome should
> be the same. Something either passes or fails a succes criterion. Based on
> .... What?
>
> So, the question remains the same. If you have a form and there are fields
> that are mandatory, how should we evaluate SC 3.3.2 in the situations I
> described before. So far most people would fail this succes criterion on
> most of the situations. And Brian gave an interesting different view when
> looking at it from the normative text only. He would not fail any of the
> situations.
>
> Anyone else have a thought on this?
>
> It also comes down to how to use the 'Understanding' document and the 'How
> to meet' in the interpretation of the normative text and whether you can
> use that to either fail or pass a succes criterion or not. It is quit a
> fundamental question I think.
>
> Met vriendelijke groet,
>
> Gerard Copinga
>
>
> Cardan Technobility
> TalentSquare 13
> 5038 LX Tilburg
> Tel.: +31 (0) 88 500 4070
> E-mail: gerard@technobility.nl
> WWW: www.technobility.nl
> Werkdagen: maandag, dinsdagochtend, woensdag, donderdagochtend
>
>
>
> Op wo 31 jul. 2019 om 20:37 schreef Steve Green <
> steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>:
>
>> I am not sure exactly what you mean by "legal evaluations", but as an
>> independent testing company I guess we are doing that a lot of the time
>> because some of our clients only care about conformance, not user
>> experience. Often they are digital agencies who are building a website for
>> someone else and they want to know that they have met their contractual
>> obligations.
>>
>> As such, they are never going to implement the nice-to-have enhancements
>> that in-house developers might implement. And we have to be very careful
>> that we can justify anything we tell them they need to change.
>>
>> We also provide conformance assessments to companies that are getting
>> sued (invariably under ADA in the US). However, to date these assessments
>> have not been used because the plaintiff and defendant just want to settle
>> as soon as possible regardless of the rights and wrongs of the case.
>>
>> Steve Green
>> Managing Director
>> Test Partners Ltd
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
>> Sent: 31 July 2019 09:35
>> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Indicating required fields mandatory or not (SC 3.3.2 or
>> 2.4.6)
>>
>> On 31/07/2019 09:18, Gerard Copinga wrote:
>>
>> > Are there other people on this list who do (legal) evaluations? And
>> > how would you deal with this?
>>
>> I'll echo the general sentiment that especially for evaluations/audits
>> that have a legal aspect to them, you as an auditor have to be VERY
>> conservative in what you pass/fail when it falls within gray areas, and
>> it's generally about the very literal reading of the normative wording of
>> the SC only. Unless you can provide fairly watertight proof that your
>> particular interpretation is correct and accepted, you sometimes have to
>> clarify when something "follows the normative wording, but we'd still
>> recommend you do X" instead.
>>
>> P
>> --
>> Patrick H. Lauke
>>
>> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>>
>>