Re: Indicating required fields mandatory or not (SC 3.3.2 or 2.4.6)

I will exactly second Patrick in all the 4 scenarios.


Thanks & Regards

Rakesh

On 7/23/2019 5:59 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> On 23/07/2019 13:01, Gerard Copinga wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've looked in the archives but could not really find an answer to my 
>> question, so I will ask it here.
>>
>> I have always understood that it was mandatory to indicate which form 
>> fields are required and which are not. If I read the understanding 
>> document of SC 3.3.2 it is also listed as a benefit:
>>
>> "Providing clear and unambiguous labels and instructions (including 
>> clear identification of required fields) can prevent users from 
>> making incomplete or incorrect form submissions, which prevents users 
>> from having to navigate once more through a page/form in order to fix 
>> submission errors."
>>
>> So I was under the impression that it was mandatory to clearly 
>> identify required fields. There is also a technique for this (H90 : 
>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/html/H90 ).
>>
>> But there has been some discussion on this in my network. Can anyone 
>> explain to me if it is a MUST or a SHOULD. In other words, can I FAIL 
>> SC 3.3.2  (or 2.4.6?) in the following cases or not?
>
> There's probably a bit of judgement/subjectivity here, depending on 
> the situation...
>
>> 1) There is no visible indication of which form fields are required ; 
>> and some are required and some are not.
>
> I'd fail under 3.3.2 (I'd not ding it under 2.4.6 if the label is 
> otherwise descriptive enough of what's expected by the user, even if 
> the required-ness isn't clearly signposted, but arguably that my 
> personal take on it)
>
>> 2) There is no visible indication of which form fields are required ; 
>> and all are required (for instance a login form with username and 
>> password fields).
>
> I would not fail this under 3.3.2 nor 2.4.6, as it's clear from 
> context/habit that the fields are required.
>
>> 3) There is a visible indication by using a * (asterisk), but there 
>> is no explanation of the meaning of the * (asteriks).
>
> I would not fail this under 3.3.2 nor 2.4.6, as it's a fairly 
> common/broadly understood convention, though I would recommend for 
> other reasons (e.g. AT not announcing the asterisk depending on 
> verbosity settings) that it might not be ideal (prefer using spelled 
> out "(required)")
>
>> 4) There is no visible indication of which form fields are required ; 
>> and some are required and some are not. But after submitting the form 
>> there is a message at each required input field saying that the field 
>> is required.
>
> Fail under 3.3.2, as the point of 3.3.2 roughly is that it avoids this 
> sort of surprise/frustration.
>
> Of course, interpretations on this may vary, so this is purely my 
> personal take on it.
>
> P

Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2019 14:55:22 UTC