RE: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?

Ø  So, it is interesting that aria-required=”true” is not required.

Alan, if the required state was indicated visually then there would need to be some programmatic/textual indication of required – that is covered currently.  I’m speaking more generally about any indication of required – that is if you read the technique G83 you could assume that it would be acceptable to only indicator the required state to all users on error and not otherwise.  This may not be in the intention of the WCAG WG – but one could read into based on the mapping of g83.  So agree with Sailesh’s concern.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
703.637.8957 (o)
Follow us: Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/#!/ssbbartgroup> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/#!/SSBBARTGroup> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog> | Newsletter<http://eepurl.com/O5DP>

From: ALAN SMITH [mailto:alands289@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 12:23 PM
To: Jonathan Avila; Sailesh Panchang; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?

Johnathan,

So, it is interesting that aria-required=”true” is not required.

I’m surprised that it never got into WCAG 2.0 to inform the users of screen readers in particular that a field is required as they tab into it.

Star edit from an asterisk in a label just does not cut it for me and users I’m serving.

Alan

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Jonathan Avila<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 12:05 PM
To: Sailesh Panchang<mailto:sailesh.panchang@deque.com>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?

Sailesh, I agree we need a resolution on this.  Right now this association indicates that you can comply with the required field indication visually and programmatically only appearing after submitting a form.  That is a page with required fields does not need to indicate them to conform to WCAG except on error then the required field state would need to be indicated visually/programmatically.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
703.637.8957 (o)
Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter

-----Original Message-----
From: Sailesh Panchang [mailto:sailesh.panchang@deque.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 11:45 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?

SC 3.3.2 is listed as the third applicable SC for this technique.
In example #3 the error text displayed after form submission is associated using the LABEL element. So this really  is a method of meeting 1.3.1 ... not 3.3.2.
The label, "First name" still remains the label that conveys the purpose of the field that satisfies 3.3.2.
Associating an asterisk or "- mandatory" or "-optional" or error text as part of the LABEL element is a method of meeting 1.3.1. Refer ARIA2 for instance.
So my recommendation is that  "SC 3.3.2" should be deleted from list of applicable SCs of G83. It is alright to retain the example though because it clarifies how 3.3.1 and 3.3.3 are met.
Thanks,
Sailesh Panchang