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

Hello Alastair,

That a warning for "invalidates other previously entered information"
is in the SC suggests that some validation is present.
So unless the hotel info corresponds to the selected destination in
your example, the submission cannot happen and would need a warning.
Is that not based on some validation?
The proposed SC pertains to multi-step processes, however, SC 3.3.6
applies to all forms and submissions including multi step processes. I
do not see an exclusion for "processes".
If an application is SC 3.3.6 compliant and affords at least one of
the three mechanisms listed , what is the additional specific
accessibility gap this new SC is trying to fix? Mechanism #2 and 3
surely apply before submission ... just like what the new SC requires.
Another point I am trying to make is that is it really necessary to
explicitly include an exception like, "unless the information cannot
be modified for logical, security, or privacy reasons"? SC 3.3.6 can
be effectively applied  even without including this explicit
exception, no?
If for instance, one is not able to change  quantity ordered or
shipping address (which are not privacy or security info), it impacts
all users and is a functionality issue and results in poor user
experience. Yes it is a pain but one simply has to abort the ordering
process and start over if one wishes to persist with that merchant.
My general  thought is that we should try to elevate Level AAA SCs
first before crafting new SCs. New SCs should be written only for
areas where new accessibility gaps have come to light which need to be
addressed.
Thanks and best wishes,
Sailesh

On 7/17/20, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
>> 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?
>
> It's hard to directly compare the strictness, the number of instances is
> slightly less for one, the requirement is slightly less for the other.
>
> We could consider changing levels, but they don't seem as closely tied as
> SCs such as focus visible / focus appearance. Changing the level of the
> others hadn't occurred to me, I think because I had assumed that the
> user-need was more general for 3.3.4 (i.e. across multiple disabilities),
> whereas the new one came specifically from COGA research.
>
> Would you propose to adjust the SC levels? In which direction? So long as
> the current A/AA ones are still at A/AA I don't think others would object,
> it would be for the purpose of understandability/consistency.
>
>
>> In addition, the understanding document states the following which is not
>> backed up in the SC at all and thus is not enforceable.
>
> The SC was updated quite a lot, the understanding doc might need to catch
> up. It is using 'should' but we could separate the aspects which are
> preferred rather than required by the SC. As part of the understanding
> document, that's relatively straightforward either side of publication.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
>
>


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

Received on Friday, 17 July 2020 16:41:10 UTC