RE: "Error correction (Processes)" to WCAG 2.2 draft

Hi Alastair, 3.3.6 is actually more broad as it covers when the page allows users to submit information, so the newly proposed SC is more limited to processes.    That seems in line with the level designation.  The proposed SC essentially requires all 3 review, confirm, and correct and doesn't accept a "checked" method.  This seems more strict although understandable as a user need.  My main Question is then how we justify it's Level A when we have less strict requirements at Level A and AA.    Should we change the level of existing criteria 3.3.4 and 3.3.6 to A as well?

In addition, the understanding document states the following which is not backed up in the SC at all and thus is not enforceable.  If we want this to be enforceable we would need to add this to the SC text itself.
They should then be able to easily review and revise their previous entries as required. After review or correction, they should then be able to easily continue from the step they were at before and without re-entering anything

Jonathan

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 7:49 PM
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>; Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Cc: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: "Error correction (Processes)" to WCAG 2.2 draft

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.

Hi Jon, Sailesh,

Apologies, I missed your emails when they came in.

We had discussed the relationship to 3.3.6 previously:
https://www.w3.org/2020/03/03-ag-minutes.html#item07

In short, this one is scoped to processes (and decided that 'multi-step' wasn't necessary for the SC text), and it is about the ability to review and change your input, whether that is a confirmation page or going back to previous steps.

One factor that's changed since 3.3.6 is the understanding of user need (coming from the COGA TF), and the scope of 3.3.4 and 3.3.6 are different as well. This applies more widely than 3.3.4, and has a different success mechanism to both of them.

Sailesh,
This SC isn't about validation, that doesn't figure in the scope or the requirement.

The requirement is that if you enter information in a process, you can review & change it. The "logical" exception is because you might be in a multi-step process, go back and change something which logically means later information is not valid any more. E.g. changing the destination of a holiday would invalidate the hotel information in a later step.

The reason this was created by the COGA task force is because the ability to review and change information is a much greater need for people with cognitive impairments.

Kind regards,

-Alastair


From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com<mailto:jon.avila@levelaccess.com>>
Sent: 10 July 2020 19:23
To: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: "Error correction (Processes)" to WCAG 2.2 draft

This SC seems similar to SC 3.3.6 (which is Level AAA) although this one mentions processes and seems stricter than 3.3.4 which is Level AA.  I would like more clarity on relationship to existing criteria before committing to a CFC.

Jonathan

From: Pascalides, Justine E ( JPASCALIDES ) <JPascalides@ETS.ORG<mailto:JPascalides@ETS.ORG>>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 2:07 PM
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>; WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: CFC - Add "Error correction (Processes)" to WCAG 2.2 draft

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.

Hi All,

An exception to the SC is implied with the current verbiage. It seems to me that explicitly calling out the exception (i.e., "unless essential to the activity") would align with the presentation of exceptions in other success criteria - which would cover the logical, security, privacy, and other valid reasons where an exception might be applicable.

Does the use of a "Next" button within a process constitute a submission? If buttons used to advance but not complete a process are out of scope, perhaps explicitly mentioning that would be helpful in defining a "submission" for purposes of this SC.

Justine

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa..com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa..com>>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 5:51 AM
To: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: CFC - Add "Error correction (Processes)" to WCAG 2.2 draft
Importance: High

Apologies, that was the wrong PR link, it should be:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1157<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fpull%2F1157&data=02%7C01%7Cjpascalides%40ets.org%7Ccd582c94933c405cf7be08d824b6bba0%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637299714540028847&sdata=jtqO%2BOk6QzJyu6uPmCPcKTNZNaWu27JEXPDbUaYDTUQ%3D&reserved=0>


From: Alastair Campbell


Call For Consensus - ends Wednesday July 15th at midday Boston time.



The Working Group has discussed adding the new SC "Error correction (Processes)" to the WCAG 2.2 draft:

https://www.w3.org/2020/03/25-ag-minutes.html#item03<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2020%2F03%2F25-ag-minutes.html%23item03&data=02%7C01%7Cjpascalides%40ets.org%7Ccd582c94933c405cf7be08d824b6bba0%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637299714540028847&sdata=d3y5bvaHRbrp65DPhFPypUheLUDzgWDOYBO2kjc%2B7%2Fo%3D&reserved=0>



The changes, preview of the documents, and survey link are detailed in this pull request:

https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1046<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fpull%2F1046&data=02%7C01%7Cjpascalides%40ets.org%7Ccd582c94933c405cf7be08d824b6bba0%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637299714540038841&sdata=jce6Q7NL4o2gWUxzLv0AClEY2CXRLAl%2BxpggyByttRM%3D&reserved=0>



If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you "not being able to live with" this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.

Kind regards,

-Alastair

--

www.nomensa.com<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nomensa.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjpascalides%40ets.org%7Ccd582c94933c405cf7be08d824b6bba0%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637299714540048833&sdata=h5n8AdbjK20hVzqbMWoIzchT%2B%2B7k10qrhdbtoEcXVCU%3D&reserved=0> / @alastc


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________