- From: Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au>
- Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 02:14:23 +1000
- To: "'Loretta Guarino Reid'" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Cc: <public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org>
I don't see a 2.5.1 -----Original Message----- From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com] Sent: Saturday, 7 July 2007 12:36 AM To: Gian Sampson-Wild Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org Subject: Re: Comment LC-1116 This comment referred to SC 2.5.1 "If an input error is detected, the error is identified and described to the user in text." Loretta On 7/6/07, Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> wrote: > Comment 89: > > Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer > (Issue ID: LC-1116) > > Examples: The example implies that this SC requires that correctly filled > out fields are kept available after reload - is this what this SC requires? > > Proposed Change: > > Clarify the SC > > ---------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > ---------------------------- > > You are right that the success criteria doesn't require all correctly filled > out fields to be kept available after reload. We don't believe we can > require this at Level A, however, as there may be valid reasons, such as > security and privacy, for not doing this. We have modified the example to > use an alert instead of a page reload. If authors use this technique, a good > benefit is that the user's original entries will be preserved even though > the success criterion doesn't require it. > ---------------------------- > Response from GSW: > ---------------------------- > Does this alert require client-side scripting and if so, should WCAG2 be > requiring the use of a particular technology? Is it possible to say "keep > fields after reload unless information has security or privacy requirements > and instead then provide an alert"? If you can remind me of which SC this > refers to I can comment more accurately. > >
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 16:14:52 UTC