Re[2]: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?

Hi Sailesh,

Thanks for your input on this. I have been asking myself how much of 
this discussion seems to be cavilling over a very minor distinction - 
with actually can go either way depending on interpretation?

Thanks

Josh



------ Original Message ------
From: "Sailesh Panchang" <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
To: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: "jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com" <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>; "Michael 
Pluke" <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>; "James Nurthen" 
<james.nurthen@oracle.com>; "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: 18/02/2016 02:07:31
Subject: 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 09:24:00 UTC