RE: Pre-CFC - Redundant entry

Hi everyone,

Just to round this off, in the meeting on Tuesday [1,2] we discussed the version of Redundant Entry without a definition of steps, and various possible versions of this SC around that topic.

Coming to a useful definition of 'steps' appeared to be a dead end, so the choice was between:

  *   Using the new version which avoids the concept of steps.
  *   Reverting to the original text with "steps", but without defining it and relying on a plain English interpretation.

In the end the use of steps making the SC clearer swayed more people to that alternative, and it was the decision in the call.

Also, a note was added that:
"Security verification, such as repeating a password, is considered essential."

So the version that will be CFCed shortly is here:




From: Alastair Campbell <>
Sent: 18 May 2020 12:33
To: WCAG list ( <>
Subject: Pre-CFC - Redundant entry

Hi everyone,

On a previous call we agreed to the success criteria text for Redundant Entry:

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,


--<> / @alastc

Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2020 23:11:27 UTC