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

Hi Andrew,
Let me try once more to state my case:
SC 3.3.2 refers to "labels _or_ instructions" and the text label
"First name" (even if not PD serves as a unique label to convey the
field's purpose distinctly.
The visible text "(required)" placed next to the field would fail to
convey the field's purpose distinctly and cannot be regarded as a
label.
It is supplementary or instructional text just like password / date
format rules.
In
<label for=“fn”>First name</label>(required)<input type=“text” id=“fn”>
or
<span>First name (required)</span><input type=“text”>"
the field passes 3.3.2 simply based on"First name" i.e. label.
The instruction "(required)" whether displayed visibly or not is no
longer relevant for passing 3.3.2.
If it is present on the screen it can only fail 1.3.1 if it is not PD.

The WCAG2 definition of label, "label is presented to all users"  is
very significant.
If all fields on the form only had "required" next to them, the form
would be unusable because no labels are present.
But if the fields had "First name", "Last name, "Phone#" etc. these
will be regarded as labels by one and all.
Also, if the extra HTML5 "required" or aria-required=true were
present, it is an instruction available to some users ... not all. So
it does not fit the definition of a label.
And if the label for-id method is used to associate the "required"
with the field, it is only using H44 to satisfy 1.3.1 ... does not
impact the pass / fail state of 3.3.2.

Does this help explain my position why 3.3.2 is inapplicable to G83 or
H90 and to support my appeal to de-link SC 3.3.2 from these techniques
and replace it with SC 1.3.1?

Thanks and best regards,
Sailesh Panchang


On 2/16/16, Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> I am confused by your  "This may be where we disagree.  I think that
> the visual presence of “required” is part of the passing of 3.3.2"
> following your example #1:
> "<label for=“fn”>First name</label>(required)<input type=“text”
> id=“fn”> — 1.3.1 issue, 3.3.2 ok"
> and your statement:
> "Yes, but to pass 3.3.2 you don’t necessarily need to have the label
> be programmatically associated with the control.  1.3.1 requires that
> the equivalent information be available programmatically, but If I had
> this, I believe it would pass 3.3.2 and fail 1.3.1:
> <span>First name (required)</span><input type=“text”>"
>
> Also, please can you also  respond  to my comments in the last email about:
> - using only HTML5 "required"   or aria-required=true without a visual cue
> - why other techniques like G85 or SCR18 or ARIA2 do not include 3.3.2
> as applicable SC and the need to make G83 consistent with those
> techniques?
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Sailesh Panchang
>
>
> On 2/16/16, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>I agree, this code passes 3.3.2 for "First name" and fails 1.3.1 for
>>>"First name" and 1.3.1 also for "required".
>>
>> This may be where we disagree.  I think that the visual presence of
>> “required” is part of the passing of 3.3.2.
>>
>> AWK
>>
>

Received on Thursday, 18 February 2016 02:08:07 UTC