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

On 20/08/2019 08:52, Brian Bors wrote:
> Hey Sean,
> 
> That is the very thing under discussion. The SC only mentions " Labels 
> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/labels-or-instructions.html#dfn-label> 
> or instructions are provided when content requires user input. " in it's 
> normative text. Which is not explicitly asking for those labels or 
> instructions to mention the fact that the input is required.
> 
> One group is arguing that the original intention of the SC is clear and 
> that it should be mentioned in the instructions or label that the input 
> field is required because it is mentioned in the examples and the 
> techniques.
> 
> The other group is arguing that we can only recommend that it is a good 
> idea to mention that the fields are required because examples and 
> techniques are non-normative.
> 
> I think that is a good summary of the discussion so far.

And I'll add that there's a certain amount of subjective judgement (both 
for authors and auditors) about when a required field benefits from 
being explicitly labelled visually as "required". It depends on context. 
For instance, if we're looking at a standard username/password login 
form, it's understood that both are required, without the need to say 
"Username (required)" / "Password (required)". Or, in a large form where 
everything is required *except* a few fields, it makes more sense to add 
"(optional)" or similar to those fields that aren't instead. Now, if a 
form has a few required fields, but no visible indication that they are, 
then yes, there's an argument for noting this under 2.4.6 (and possibly 
3.3.2, though that is satisfied by there being labels/instructions...it 
doesn't say how compelte/accurate/descriptive they need to be) - but 
those SCs are a bit fluffy/subjective anyway (e.g. how would you 
normatively define what is an isn't sufficiently "descriptive" for 2.4.6).

Noting that this is separate from programmatically identifying required 
fields, which is arguably a 4.1.2 requirement (as it falls under the 
*properties* of the form fields).

But long story short...it's not as black/white, cut-and-dry as saying 
"all required fields MUST be clearly labelled visibly as being required, 
otherwise it FAILS". There's a bit of nuance and subjectivity involved.

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

Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2019 08:15:14 UTC