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:


Example 4 recommends an "*" for required fields


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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:11 UTC