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

Sorry to interrupt,  but I wonder if you are missing the point.  WCAG is very clear that “textual” indication be provided when a field input is required.  The reason for textual indication is that text is always accessible to screen readers etc.  And the best place to be sure that screen readers etc. present that information is in the <label> element because it is programmatically tied to the relevant input.  Thus we only score a pass if there is something in the label to indicate required.  We sometimes discuss whether the indicator is adequate (depending upon context) but if there is no textual indicator within the label we score  a fail.

Richard

Richard Warren
Technical Manager
Userite
www.userite.com
From: Brian Bors 
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 7:45 AM
To: Gerard Copinga 
Cc: w3c WAI List 
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


       



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