Re: Pre-CFC - Redundant entry

I don’t understand why “steps in a process” is a “set of controls to achieve particular user-actions” – that doesn’t’ square with the definition of process.

Process: series of user actions where each action is required in order to complete an activity

Why isn’t “step in a process”: A single user action in a series which is required to complete an activity


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Head of Accessibility

From: Alastair Campbell <>
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 11:27 AM
To: WCAG <>
Subject: RE: Pre-CFC - Redundant entry
Resent-From: WCAG <>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 11:26 AM

Hi Wilco & everyone,

This conversation stalled a bit, is this definition for ‘steps in a process’ ok?

Added here:

If so, we can go to CFC on this one.



From: Alastair Campbell

- "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

Yea, I wasn’t happy with that, but I was trying to keep fairly close to the process definition we have. User actions are the things done as part of a process… still thinking about that.

- "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

When we discussed it on a call, the main thing was that you had to navigate between steps. That doesn’t mean just page by page, but we wanted to include accordion type forms as well.

How about:
“Step a in a process: a set of user-interface controls to achieve particular user-actions, where navigation is required to reach another set of user-interface controls in the same process"



Received on Friday, 29 May 2020 01:05:58 UTC