Re: Pre-CFC - Redundant entry

Hi All

I'm not sure if this will be helpful but here is the history of why we
defined the term "process" as I remember it.

We had a page based conformance model where a site could
vertically scope out some pages (with documentation) and still meet the
WCAG for the other pages. This created a problem for a group of pages where
all of them were necessary to complete the activity. We didn't want to have
some pages in scope (conforming) and others out of scope (not conforming).

A secondary concern was steps in a page such as the example we provided in
the definition of Captcha.

We could create a new term if we need more granularity than the current
definition, although it's always better to use existing definitions where
possible.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613-806-9005

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>


On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 8:25 AM Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> I think that this is why it is hard to define step in the process. The
> process definition doesn’t require that a step is a screen view, a process
> is comprised of multiple required steps. I ‘ve thought about these as
> things like:
>
>
>
> Step 1: fill out address info
>
> Step 2: add credit card info
>
> Step 3: verify information
>
> Step 4: complete the transaction
>
>
>
> But I can see based on the process definition that someone might break the
> steps that are required to progress down to:
>
> Step 1: Fill in first name field
>
> Step 2: Fill in last name field
>
> Step 3….
>
> Step 38: verify credit card number
>
> Step: 39: verify CC expiration date
>
> Etc…
>
>
>
>
>
> Can we get rid of “steps” entirely?
>
>
>
> Proposed SC language:
>
> Information entered by or provided to the user in a process is not
> required to be re-entered later in the process.
>
> Exception: When re-entering the information is essential
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-essential>.
>
> Note: re-entering information for verification purposes or to ensure
> accuracy, such as asking a user to provide a new password twice is regarded
> as essential.
>
>
>
> This makes auto-populating information a technique that we don’t really
> need to explicitly mention, and the same goes for users being able to
> select it.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Head of Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>
> *From: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Date: *Friday, May 29, 2020 at 6:05 AM
> *To: *Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Detlev Fischer <
> detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
> *Cc: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *RE: Pre-CFC - Redundant entry
>
>
>
> NB: If we get stuck on this, I’d be inclined to fall-back to the
> plain-English version of ‘steps’ that we started with and explain it in the
> understanding doc.
>
>
>
> I see Andrew’s point, and I agree with Detlev about granularity (which
> wasn’t an issue if you don’t define step). If we considered these things in
> a hierarchy, it would probably be something like this:
>
>
>
> Level 1: Process
>
>   Level 2: Pages/views
>
>      Level 3: Accordion or similar show/hide widget within a page
> (optionally, not all pages use this)
>
>         Level 4: Inputs on a page/view
>
>            Level 5: User action (to fill in an input, you could even
> interpret that as a letter at a time?)
>
>
>
> Of course, previously it didn’t matter and you could consider a
> user-action at a higher level.
>
>
>
> We were aiming to put ‘steps’ above level 4, i.e. above the input level,
> but below whatever thing(s) you have to navigate between to show the inputs.
>
>
>
> I tried adjusting the definition of process, but the problem is that all
> of these terms (actions, tasks, etc) are used in various ways, I don’t
> think there is a perfect (or even suitable) term for what we want that is
> sufficiently clear.
>
>
>
> Instead, how about taking out the reference to ‘actions’, so:
>
> *Step in a process*: a set of user-interface controls where selecting a
> link or button is required to reach another set of user-interface controls
> in the same *process*
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Detlev Fischer
>
>
>
> To me, a “step in a process” feels not as fine-grained as each individual
> user action in it - it seems to refer to the way longer processes are
> compartmentalized by the author into several pages or views (often with a
> sequential navigation) or into several (expanded or injected) segments of a
> form. It might then be advantageous to define ‘process’ as “an interaction
> consisting of one or more tasks” (like ‘provide contact info’, ‘provide
> shipping address’, ‘provide payment details‘, etc.) rather than as ‘a
> series of user actions’. That definition seems to lose the level of
> granularity that we need.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>