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

Hey Sean,

That is the very thing under discussion. The SC only mentions " Labels
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/labels-or-instructions.html#dfn-label>
or instructions are provided when content requires user input. " in it's
normative text. Which is not explicitly asking for those labels or
instructions to mention the fact that the input is required.

One group is arguing that the original intention of the SC is clear and
that it should be mentioned in the instructions or label that the input
field is required because it is mentioned in the examples and the
techniques.

The other group is arguing that we can only recommend that it is a good
idea to mention that the fields are required because examples and
techniques are non-normative.

I think that is a good summary of the discussion so far.

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 di 20 aug. 2019 om 09:00 schreef Sean Murphy (seanmmur) <
seanmmur@cisco.com>:

> I am not really sure if I am following this discussion. I thought it was a
> requirement to indicate a field was mandatory? Am I missing something here?
>
>
>
>
>
> [image:
> 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
>
> Tel: *+61 2 8446 7751*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cisco Systems, Inc.
>
> The Forum 201 Pacific Highway
>
> ST LEONARDS
>
> 2065
>
> Australia
>
> cisco.com
>
> [image: 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:* Brian Bors <b.bors@accessibility.nl>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 August 2019 4:46 PM
> *To:* Gerard Copinga <gerard@technobility.nl>
> *Cc:* w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject:* 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: Image removed by sender. Facebook]
> <http://www.facebook.com/accessibilitynl>  [image: Image removed by
> sender. Twitter] <http://www.twitter.com/accessibilitynl>  [image: Image
> removed by sender. LinkedIn]
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/accessibilitynl>  [image: Image removed
> by sender. Instagram] <https://www.instagram.com/accessibilitynl>
> [image: Image removed by sender. 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
>
>
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>
> 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
>
>