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

Yes, I have seen similar issues with other interpretation such as 1.4.3 in relation to Icons/images before WCAG 2.1 was released.


[https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/m/en_us/signaturetool/images/banners/standard/02_standard_ciscoblue02.png]
Sean Murphy
SR ENGINEER.SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
seanmmur@cisco.com<mailto:seanmmur@cisco.com>
Tel: +61 2 8446 7751




Cisco Systems, Inc.
The Forum 201 Pacific Highway
ST LEONARDS
2065
Australia
cisco.com
[http://www.cisco.com/assets/swa/img/thinkbeforeyouprint.gif]
Think before you print.
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
Please click here<http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/legal/terms-sale-software-license-agreement/company-registration-information.html> for Company Registration Information.


From: Gerard Copinga <gerard@technobility.nl>
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2019 4:36 PM
To: Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: 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

[Image removed by sender.]
Cardan Technobility
TalentSquare 13
5038 LX Tilburg
Tel.: +31 (0) 88 500 4070
E-mail: gerard@technobility.nl<mailto:gerard@technobility.nl>
WWW: www.technobility.nl<http://www.technobility.nl>
Werkdagen: maandag, dinsdagochtend, woensdag, donderdagochtend


Op wo 31 jul. 2019 om 20:37 schreef Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk<mailto: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<mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>>
Sent: 31 July 2019 09:35
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto: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<http://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