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

Hey Gerard and others,

I agree with Patrick that we should be very conservative in failing
websites that follow the normative wording of SC. I don't think we have
watertight proof that the SC explicitly asks for information about which
fields are mandatory and which ones aren't. So unless we can reach a
consensus here we can't really fail this can we? We can only recommend,
correct? Anybody in disagreement?

Greetings,
Brian Bors

[image: Facebook] <http://www.facebook.com/accessibilitynl>  [image:
Twitter] <http://www.twitter.com/accessibilitynl>  [image: LinkedIn]
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/accessibilitynl>  [image: Instagram]
<https://www.instagram.com/accessibilitynl>
[image: Logo Stichting Accessibility - Digitale toegankelijkheid voor
iedereen]


Op ma 19 aug. 2019 om 16:04 schreef Gerard Copinga <gerard@technobility.nl>:

> Hi all,
>
> Anyone else have some input on this? It would help a lot in how to
> interpret 3.3.2 when performing a site evaluation.
>
> Gerard
>
>
> Op do 1 aug. 2019 08:36 schreef Gerard Copinga <gerard@technobility.nl>:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>