Re: Pre-CFC - Redundant entry

Hey Alastair,
Thanks for bringing this back. I do think "step" needs to be defined, there
is no dictionary entry for "step" when it comes to user interfaces. There
are a few issues with the proposed definition:

- "user-actions presented": I don't think a "user action" is something that
can be "presented", you can present content that users can interact with,
but I don't think you can actually present the action itself
- "presented separately": this can mean a number of things. Form controls
in a fieldset can be said to be "presented separately", but that doesn't
seem to be the intended meaning

I've been thinking of a solution, haven't found one but I'll let you all
know if I come up with something.

W


On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:33 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> On a previous call we agreed to the success criteria text for Redundant
> Entry:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1046
>
>
>
> That has been review, including the understanding doc & techniques now.
> (See the PR for links.)
>
>
>
> As far as I’m aware, the only out-standing comment is whether ‘step’ needs
> a definition, as the SC starts off “For steps in a process,"
>
>
>
> For context, process is defined as:
>
> “series of user actions where each action is required in order to complete
> an activity"
>
>
>
> And used in the conformance section with:
>
> “When a Web page is one of a series of Web pages presenting a process
> (i.e., a sequence of steps that need to be completed in order to accomplish
> an activity), all Web pages in the process conform”
>
>
>
> Personally, I think ‘step’ works as a regular English term.
>
>
>
> If we did define a “step” in WCAG 2.2 we have to be careful not to
> re-define previous usage. I think perhaps something like:
>
>
>
> “*Step a in a process:* one or more user-actions presented separately
> from other user-actions in a *process*”
>
> (Remembering that our definitions should work if they are dropped into the
> SC text.)
>
>
>
> My thinking being that it should work for separate pages and for accordion
> style forms.
>
>
>
> I’m not sure it really adds anything though. Do other agree it is needed,
> and if so what it should say?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> www.nomensa.com / @alastc
>


-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Axe for Web product owner - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair ACT-R