W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > July 2008

Re: Duplicate General techniques: form validation and alt-text

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:28:13 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0807241928r468badc4ya7830e8dc2ef67e4@mail.gmail.com>
To: sailesh.panchang@deque.com
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org

Please see responses inline.

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Sailesh Panchang
<sailesh.panchang@deque.com> wrote:
> 1. G83, G84 and G85 that relate to SC 3.3.1 and 3.3.3 employ the same
> testing techniques: Check if validation errors are described in text with
> appropriate tips for correction.
> They could be incomplete data, incorrect range of values or incorrect format
> or even other (unstated) errors like values entered in one field may not be
> consistent with other entries in the form. All  are basically validation
> errors. Three separate techniques are not warranted. Merge them.
> G83: Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not
> completed
> G84: Providing a text description when the user provides information that is
> not in the list of allowed values
> G85: Providing a text description when user input falls outside the required
> format or values

Response from the Working Group
While it is true that these are all examples of validation errors, we
think it is helpful to separate them. It draws more attention to these
particular types of validation for which there are suggestions
available. This list is by no means exhaustive, and a generic
validation technique would be a good addition. Would you help us by
writing one and submitting it via
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/TECHS-SUBMIT/  ?

> 2. G82, G94 and G95: Not clear why there are 3 techniques. There are copious
> notes on how alt text / short text alts should be written in different
> situations. Significant portions of descriptions for G94 and G95 are
> identical. So I suggest: merge all three.
> G82: Providing a text alternative that identifies the purpose of the
> non-text content
> G94: Providing short text alternative for non-text content that serves the
> same purpose and presents the same information as the non-text content
> G95: Providing short text alternatives that provide a brief description of
> the non-text content

Response from the Working Group
Although the techniques are quite similar, they address different
situations and require different types of information in the text
alternative. G82, which only requires that the purpose of the non-text
content be identified, would not be sufficient for Situation A of SC
1.1.1, where it is possible to provide a text equivalent to the
non-text content.

We have added pointers between the two techniques to show they are related.

Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact

On behalf of the WCAG Working Group
Received on Friday, 25 July 2008 02:28:53 UTC

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