RE: Guideline 2.5 Issues Summary

Great summary!

A few comments inline (marked [BBC]).

-Ben

>2. If a user error is detected, and suggestions for correction are
>known and can be provided without jeopardizing security or purpose, the 
>error isidentified and the suggestions are provided in an accessible 
>form that meets the other Level 1 success criteria.

[BBC] in guideline 4.2, we use "... that meets WCAG 2.0 at the level specified."

Suggest revising this to read, "... that meets WCAG 2.0 at level A." (relates issue 1047)

>Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.5
>
>1. Where text entry is required for which there is a known set of less
>than 75 valid choices, and they can be provided without jeopardizing
>security orpurpose, users are allowed to select from a list of options >as well as to type the data directly.


[BBC] This one is a bit tough to understand (and write clearly). Can we think of examples where text entry would be required in a form where the options are known? Perhaps this criterion should be moved to General and marked optional? Or are we trying to say that authors should provide pull downs or select lists _instead_ of using text-entry?

>2. Where text entry is required, an option is provided to check for
>misspelled words. If possible for the natural language of the text, the
>spell checker makes suggestions for correct spellings.


>Examples of Guideline 2.5 (Informative)

[BBC] Great examples. To match the format of examples in the guidelines, they'll each need a short title. I propose:

Example 1: Identifying errors in form submission.
Example 2: Usernames and passwords.
Example 3: An online test.
Example 4: Order confirmation.
Example 5: A pull down list. ???
Example 6: Search engine spell check.
Example 7: Spell checking feedback forms.

>Example 2: A Web page requires the user to enter both a userid and
>password. If either is incorrect, the user is informed that there was
>an error but, for security reasons, is not informed as to which field, >the userid or the password, is in error and suggestions for correcting >are not offered.

[BBC] is "username" more common/easier to understand that "userid"?

>Example 6: A search engine is provided with a variety of search options
>for different skill levels and preferences. It includes an option to >check the spelling of the search terms and offers "best guess" >alternatives, query-by-example searches, and similarity searches.

[BBC] Issue #1098 suggests making spell check optional, but it seems to me that it makes more sense to make it automatic in the case of search engines as in the example above and optional in the case of feedback forms or online email applications like example 7 below. Suggest revising the last sentence of example 6 to read, "It examines the spelling of the search terms and offers..." 

>Example 7: A banking Web site provides a form for customers to submit
>questions or suggestions. The form user interface includes an optional
>spell-checking feature for the text input area where the question or
>suggestion is entered.

Received on Thursday, 11 November 2004 16:55:51 UTC