RE: Mandatory fields

  *   Explaining the asterisk after its appearance (visually, in DOM or in the accessibility tree) violates meaningful order.

At least in English, this statement can be challenged. There is definitely a convention that a symbol at the end of a word can be considered a cross-reference to a footnote*

In such a case, the endnote/footnote is intended to be presented that way. It’s consistent presentation to all users makes it difficult to fail for meaningful sequence. While I think you can make some good cases for why it’s better at the top of the page, I don’t think it is a clearcut failure.

* Sometimes they’re numbered, but sometimes they’re just symbols. Just like how I’ve used the asterisk here. It is almost ubiquitous in advertising, etc.

Mike

From: Marc Haunschild <marc.haunschild@accessibility.consulting>
Date: Friday, May 13, 2022 at 7:21 AM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Mandatory fields
Hi Sarah, An asterisk without an explanation is not a sufficient description. The error messages are not helpful for example if a field for a day, telephone number or something similar expects a certain order and special characters like mm/dd/yy
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hi Sarah,

An asterisk without an explanation is not a sufficient description.

The error messages are not helpful for example if a field for a day, telephone number or something similar expects a certain order and special characters like mm/dd/yy or dd.mm.yyyy - these things have to be explained.

Also the error messages of browsers are not visually connected with the mandatory input. If a user accidentally scrolls a little bit, they end up staying next to another input which might be not mandatory at all.

Explaining the asterisk after its appearance (visually, in DOM or in the accessibility tree) violates meaningful order.

For users that can see there must be a visual indication of required fields; for users of assistive technology a programmatically determinable connection between the information and the input has to be provided. For example the required attribute or a text in the label.

It’s good practice to hide the asterisk (and the description for the asterisk) from screenreader users. If you inform them with a different technique anyway (like the required attribute) this would be redundant clutter.

--

Mit freundlichen Grüßen


Marc Haunschild
Accessibility Consultant

https://Accessibility.Consulting<https://Accessibility.Consulting>
Prüfstelle im BIK-BITV-Prüfverbund

Marc Haunschild Internet-Services (mhis.de)
Sonnenhof 32
53119 Bonn
Telefon: 0170 8 64 00 63
Email: Haunschild@Accessibility.Consulting
Website: https://mhis.de


Am 13.05.2022 um 15:48 schrieb Ms J <ms.jflz.woop@gmail.com<mailto:ms.jflz.woop@gmail.com>>:

Hello

For 3.3.2 do mandatory fields need to be identifiable as such in the label in the first instance? Or is it sufficient to use error handling to prompt users to complete the form?

If fields are marked with an asterisk and error handling is used to inform users when they have missed a required field, but the asterisk is not explained, does this fail 3.3.2?

Thanks

Sarah