- From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 17:11:53 +0000
- To: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
- CC: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>, "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Sailesh, > That a warning for "invalidates other previously entered information" is in the SC suggests that some validation is present. It isn't speaking to form validation, it is whether the data (potentially later in the same process) would still be valid. However, that is not the same as form validation for the page you are on. Speaking from a developer stand point, if you discuss validation of a form, they would not expect that to include data later on in the same form. Also, what is hopefully clear from the understanding doc is that 'previously entered' information can be on a later step that the one you are on. E.g. You might fill in 5 pages, go back to page 2, change something, and then have to re-enter information later. We also don't want to setup a clash with "Redundent entry", which is asking for forms not to ask the same info twice. > SC 3.3.6 applies to all forms and submissions including multi step processes. Indeed, so the new one applies less widely and is at a higher level. > 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? 3.3.6 is at level AAA, so we are acknowledging that it may not be applicable in all scenarios. The higher level version (3.3.4) is scoped to a narrower set of scenarios. > 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. Sure, but the idea here is that the requirement is to allow everyone, particularly people with cognitive issues who might not notice mistakes, the ability to change the entries. There are various feasibility issues with making that a blanket requirement, so we did need to introduce some exceptions. > My general thought is that we should try to elevate Level AAA SCs first before crafting new SCs. I would agree with that in general. In this case the final SC has come closer to 3.3.4/6 than where it started, but I think it is still different enough that raising 3.3.6 would not have the same effect. We did discuss the similarities during the previous calls. Kind regards, -Alastair
Received on Friday, 17 July 2020 17:12:09 UTC