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

> In example 3 of G83 it is clearly stated that the fact the field is mandatory is indicated even before form submission ... not just on generating error.

IMO The check doesn't require this though to pass the technique and thus passes SC 3.3.2 as it stands now.

> So besides doing away with reference to 3.3.2 in G83 I suggest changing the reference to 1.3.1 from 3.3.2 in H90.
If the group feels that a visual required notation is required for required fields then IMO it would fall under SC 3.3.2 and not SC 1.3.1.  I can't speak to H90 -- but we'd need some technique for 3.3.2 indicating this.  If it's not required except on error then we should be clear about that.  H90 is one way to meet 1.3.1 and 3.3.2 -- but not the only way.  So my suggestion for H90 would be to add SC 1.3.1 in addition to what is there now.

Jonathan Avila


-----Original Message-----
From: Sailesh Panchang [mailto:sailesh.panchang@deque.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 12:56 PM
To: Jonathan Avila
Cc: James Nurthen; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?

Jonathan,
In example 3 of G83 it is clearly stated that the fact the field is mandatory is indicated even before form submission ... not just on generating error.
So besides doing away with reference to 3.3.2 in G83 I suggest changing the reference to 1.3.1 from 3.3.2 in H90.
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. It is like any other advisory / instructional text and by itself does not convey the purpose of the field.
Even without it, the field still has a label and it is sufficient for 3.3.2. Only if a visual required cue or instruction is present, then making it PD is a 1.3.1 requirement at best not an SC 3.3.2 need.
This will make H90 and G83 that were written long time ago in sync with ARIA2 that is most recent.
Thanks,
Sailesh


On 2/10/16, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
> Ø  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?
> I didn’t say it was an accessibility issue – but that we needed a 
> resolution, i.e. an official response from the WCAG WG on this subject 
> because it has come up enough to warrant discussion.  I agree with 
> your example and I’ve also seen examples where all fields are required 
> except when optional.  On the flip side people might argue that not 
> indicating required fields was a bigger obstacle to people with 
> cognitive disabilities and making changes to a form after submitting 
> could be more problematic and knowing which fields required content in 
> advance would reduce the burden on users with cognitive disabilities 
> by not making them fill out fields they didn’t have to fill out.
>
> 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: James Nurthen [mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com]
> 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<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
>
>
>
> --
> Regards, James
>
> [Oracle]<http://www.oracle.com>
> James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility
> Phone: +1 650 506 6781<tel:+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1 415 987 
> 1918<tel:+1%20415%20987%201918> | Video:
> james.nurthen@oracle.com<mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com>
> Oracle Corporate Architecture
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood Cty, CA 94065
> [Green              Oracle]<http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is
> committed to developing practices and products that help protect the 
> environment
>

Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2016 18:28:34 UTC