RE: Redundant entry queries

Hi Wilco,

> This success criterion has not been recently surveyed.

Indeed, but we didn’t want to run the CFC just before or during CSUN.
We had reviewed it in Jan & Feb, and resolved in the latter meeting to publish once the technique was finished (which took us to early March).


> - "step" has not been defined. I've remarked on this several times before.

Based on your comments we discussed that on Jan 28th:
https://www.w3.org/2020/01/28-ag-minutes.html#item02


The main thoughts were that we try not to define things which are already dictionary defined, e.g.:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/step#cald4-2


And we already talk about “a sequence of steps” for processes in the conformance section as well:
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#cc3


As far as I can tell everyone else is happy with it being a standard usage of the term, is there a scenario you have in mind where it is not clear?


> The exception has a dual meaning. The word "essential" can be read to be either about re-entering being essential, or the information being essential.

I can’t see how you’d get the latter interpretation from:
“When re-entering the information is essential”.

I think you’d have to ignore ‘re-entering’, or put a comma after it to get the other interpretation. From the other comments, are you sure you were looking at the version in the pull request? E.g. there is a word between information & essential.


>  "available for the user to select" is vague. "select" can mean a number of things, including highlighting with a cursor for copy/paste.

That was the intent, i.e. it could be a variety of things including copy-paste. The point was you don’t have to recall it from memory. There is a proposal for a technique for “Displaying the previously entered value and allowing the user to select it”.

We could add something to the understanding document about that, but from your comment it seems to convey what was intended.

Kind regards,

-Alastair