RE: Error correction and "steps"

Does going back more than one step and making a change impact the redundant entry criterion?  Seems like it could cause a chain of events as discussed in this error correct criterion.  Might be worth a note in redundant entry to allow for an exception if caused by the user changing something in a prior step.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> 
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 11:28 AM
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>; WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Error correction and "steps"

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.


Ability to go back and forth between steps depends on interdependence of input across steps, i.e. functionality.
It may be possible to make changes say in step#2  that does not impact input provided on subsequent steps. In other cases, making some changes in step#2 may require one to complete all future steps to ensure data integrity.
In the second case, a warning message that is presented on step#2 alerting the user that input for subsequent steps will need to be provided again is quite reasonable.
Here again, depending on functionality, it may be possible to retain input previously provided in subsequent steps and inject error messages too for input that fails validation based on updates to
step#2 and so on.
Perhaps this is what Alastair meant   by "from author's point of view"
in the last email.
Thanks,
Sailesh


On 6/11/20, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> From my understanding:
>
>> If the user can go back one screen at a time to review the steps is 
>> that acceptable?
>
> Yes, that's where the SC started from. I think the understanding doc 
> is needed to fill that concept in because it is allowed by the SC 
> text, but not phrased in that way due to the difficulty in defining 'steps'.
>
>
>> Does this address the situation where the user can go back and forth 
>> in steps until they reach a final screen that has a cancel or submit button?
>
> Whether you need to go back and forth, or you edit on the final 
> 'confirmation' screen is flexible from an author point of view, but yes.
>
>
>> Can restarting the process by canceling or closing out if data is not 
>> lost be a way to meet this?
>
> If you cancel out of the process I think that goes out of scope. 
> Within the scope you need the ability to go back and edit things 
> within the process. I guess if cancelling = going back to the first 
> part of the process, then yes, but it seems a stretch.
>
> HTH,
>
> -Alastair
>


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

Received on Thursday, 11 June 2020 16:56:32 UTC