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

Thanks everyone for your reactions so far. But, wether the conformance
testing is in any kind in regard to legislation or not, the outcome should
be the same. Something either passes or fails a succes criterion. Based on
.... What?

So, the question remains the same. If you have a form and there are fields
that are mandatory, how should we evaluate SC 3.3.2 in the situations I
described before. So far most people would fail this succes criterion on
most of the situations. And Brian gave an interesting different view when
looking at it from the normative text only. He would not fail any of the
situations.

Anyone else have a thought on this?

It also comes down to how to use the 'Understanding' document and the 'How
to meet' in the interpretation of the normative text and whether you can
use that to either fail or pass a succes criterion or not. It is quit a
fundamental question I think.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Gerard Copinga


Cardan Technobility
TalentSquare 13
5038 LX Tilburg
Tel.: +31 (0) 88 500 4070
E-mail: gerard@technobility.nl
WWW: www.technobility.nl
Werkdagen: maandag, dinsdagochtend, woensdag, donderdagochtend



Op wo 31 jul. 2019 om 20:37 schreef Steve Green <
steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>:

> I am not sure exactly what you mean by "legal evaluations", but as an
> independent testing company I guess we are doing that a lot of the time
> because some of our clients only care about conformance, not user
> experience. Often they are digital agencies who are building a website for
> someone else and they want to know that they have met their contractual
> obligations.
>
> As such, they are never going to implement the nice-to-have enhancements
> that in-house developers might implement. And we have to be very careful
> that we can justify anything we tell them they need to change.
>
> We also provide conformance assessments to companies that are getting sued
> (invariably under ADA in the US). However, to date these assessments have
> not been used because the plaintiff and defendant just want to settle as
> soon as possible regardless of the rights and wrongs of the case.
>
> Steve Green
> Managing Director
> Test Partners Ltd
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
> Sent: 31 July 2019 09:35
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Indicating required fields mandatory or not (SC 3.3.2 or
> 2.4.6)
>
> On 31/07/2019 09:18, Gerard Copinga wrote:
>
> > Are there other people on this list who do (legal) evaluations? And
> > how would you deal with this?
>
> I'll echo the general sentiment that especially for evaluations/audits
> that have a legal aspect to them, you as an auditor have to be VERY
> conservative in what you pass/fail when it falls within gray areas, and
> it's generally about the very literal reading of the normative wording of
> the SC only. Unless you can provide fairly watertight proof that your
> particular interpretation is correct and accepted, you sometimes have to
> clarify when something "follows the normative wording, but we'd still
> recommend you do X" instead.
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>
>