RE: Redundant entry queries

David wrote:
> The information needs to be provided at its point of use, adjacent to above or below the point at which it’s required. I had already included that in the SC text, unless someone removed it.

We don’t have anything about it being adjacent, which would also be hard to define.

Jon wrote:
> We need to clearly define then how far something needs to be – for example, if the user can copy and paste the info into a field – how far away from that field can the info be that must be copied and pasted?

Defining distance or adjacency would be tricky, but how about considering it: visible without navigation?

For example, if you have an accordion style form that asks for something in step 4 (the 4th accordion section) that was entered in step 2, you have to provide it as part of the same step. I.e. it has to be available on that step, without navigation.

If each step is on a page, that’s fine, it must be available on that page.

The weakness of that approach is that you could have a very long form/page/section with redundant entry and pass (unless it hides the previous information/entry). However, I can’t see a way around that without defining size or distance, which is very tricky.

The understanding document has this:
“Requiring people to recall information already entered in the previous steps can cause them to give up or enter incorrect information."

I suggest adding something like:
“A step can be a page or other mechanism of showing certain information and inputs at a time. The current step is the information and inputs that are available without navigating. For example, if a form uses an accordion mechanism to show one section of a form at a time, that is a step.”

Does that help?

-Alastair