- From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 12:29:40 -0400
- To: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Is there an agreement on the statement: A text message, "Please enter the departure date in the correct format: MM-DD-YYYY" placed, say, next to the field conveying visual association passes 3.3.1 and 3.3.3 but fails SC 1.3.1 if it is not programmatically associated with the field? Thanks, Sailesh On 5/16/16, Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> wrote: > Please refer to two SCs: > 3.3.1 Error Identification: If an input error is automatically > detected, the item that is in error is identified and the error is > described to the user in text. (Level A) > 3.3.3 Error Suggestion: If an input error is automatically detected > and suggestions for correction are known, then the suggestions are > provided to the user, unless it would jeopardize the security or > purpose of the content. (Level AA) > > I have noted that the phrase, "described to the user " or "provided to > the user" are not defined in WCAG 2.0. > So I interpret these to mean respectively: > - the identity of the failed field and a description of why it failed > validation is available in text on the page > - a suggestion on how the error condition can be overcome is described > in text on the page > > As an example, a text message, "Please enter the departure date in the > correct format: MM-DD-YYYY" placed, say, next to the field passes > 3.3.1 and 3.3.3 in my interpretation of WCAG 2.0. > As the message may appear to be related to the field by presentation, > I suppose SC 1.3.1 kicks in requiring programmatic association. > The presence of a global error message like, "Errors present, please > fix them and resubmit the form", or, in its absence, the field > specific message like the one above is in the nature of a notification > or an alert. It would be necessary to present it in a manner that it > really notifies the user. > In the Web 1.0 days, it would have typically been presented as a JS > alert or dialog. In today's Web world, it needs a suitable role i.e. > compliance with 4.1.2. > > Surely, if programmatic association and exposing proper role to make > it work with user agents and AT is also being conveyed by the phrases > "described to the user " or "provided to the user", that is a very > specific connotation in the context of WCAG 2.0. I would then expect > these terms to have a normative definition. The extended meaning > cannot be explained away in the "Intent" which is not normative in my > opinion. > This discussion may also have a bearing for changes to WCAG 2.0 being > debated on. > I am eager to hear what others think . > Kind regards, > Sailesh Panchang >
Received on Monday, 23 May 2016 16:30:08 UTC