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

I’ve been in IT and QA for over 20 years and have never ran into a form field that the application did not know it was required before submittal. This would be a very poor programming practice and UAT experience that should not be allowed. 

Granted it may not be validated before submittal but it has always been known by the developers who created the application. 

Regards,

Alan

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: James Nurthen
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 12:33 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?

Sometimes the application does not know if a field is required until it is submitted. If this behaviour is the same for all users - and the error messaging is happening in an accessible manner why would this be an accessibility issue?

regards,
James
On 2/10/2016 9:03 AM, Jonathan Avila wrote:
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
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
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


-- 
Regards, James 

James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility
Phone: +1 650 506 6781 | Mobile: +1 415 987 1918 | Video: james.nurthen@oracle.com 
Oracle Corporate Architecture
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood Cty, CA 94065 
Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment