Re: WCAG 2.2 SC Do Not Rely On User Memory Draft

Hello All,
About Technique 2: Auto fill information that has been entered into
previous screens, ...
Comment:
Displaying too much of previously entered data too may be frowned upon
as  one may argue that it makes the subsequent step very data
intensive and difficult for some users.
Whether to display  previously entered info in subsequent steps  as
read-only or editable data  is a matter of design, usability and
functionality desired by content author.
About Example 2: re. NAICS code search:
Again, this is a matter of functionality and application design that
impacts usability for all. If the two applications are distinct, can
accessibility requirements demand that the two be integrated?

About placeholder test: I agree with previous comments. A benefit
should be added to SC 3.3.2 listing how another PWD group is well
served by visible labels.

Thanks,
-- 
Sailesh Panchang
Principal Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems Inc
381 Elden Street, Suite 2000, Herndon, VA 20170
Mobile: 571-344-1765

On 8/23/19, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com> wrote:
> I agree, let's just add it to the understanding to clear up any confusion.
>
> Jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 2:02 PM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WCAG 2.2 SC Do Not Rely On User Memory Draft
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> content is safe.
>
>
> On 23/08/2019 17:32, David Fazio wrote:
>> I added in a reference to 3.3.2 Labels of Instructions. I don't think we
>> should omit it just because it constitutes a failure of another S.C. The
>> reason being is that this gives "cause" to users with cognitive
>> disabilities. "Cause" is a legal standard that must be met, demonstrating
>> that an individual has been harmed, in order to bring forth a lawsuit. A
>> user who is not blind, and does not rely on braille cannot sue a compant
>> for not providing braille materials, because that does not harm them.
>> Although it would harm a person that is blind.
>
> If this aspect (of the reliance on placeholder) is already a failure of
> 3.3.2, why not add that particular aspect/example - with specific reference
> to users with cognitive disabilities - directly in 3.3.2's
> understanding/techniques? You don't have to have separate SCs covering the
> same aspects for different audiences/users.
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>
>

Received on Friday, 23 August 2019 20:28:53 UTC