add Required to ErrorableCheckbox

[accbjt]

[SCREENREADER]: I have read the opt out policy checkbox needs "Required" added to label.

On Screen 2 of 2, the checkbox for I have read and accept the privacy policy * does not include a description of the asterisk or call it out as a required field like all the other fields. This is a content/text change, with screenshot attached below.

https://github.com/department-of-veterans-affairs/vets.gov-team/issues/13828

Types of changes

• [x] Bug fix (non-breaking change that fixes an issue)
• [ ] New feature (non-breaking change that adds functionality)
• [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)

Checklist:

• [x] I've reviewed the guidelines for contributing to this repository.
• [x] I've checked style and lint with npm run lint.
• [x] I built the production version with npm run build.
• [x] I added tests to verify a bug fix or new functionality.
• [x] All tests pass locally with npm test.
• [ ] My change requires a change to the documentation, and I've updated the documentation accordingly.

[dmethvin-gov]

As discussed on Slack, I think we're fine with incorporating this into 1.x so that the VA will have consistency now. To be clear, though, it's likely to be a dead end.

Longer term it is highly likely that if USFS is opinionated on this issue it will lean towards the USWDS 2.0 recommendation to mark optional fields. I would think that required fields are more common than optional ones in most forms. Denoting just the optional fields reduces both visual and audio clutter.

I also doubt this is a place where we'd just "add a flag to do it either way" because it would be really confusing to have government websites varying on something this fundamental.

[jbalboni]

@dmethvin-gov Yep, that makes sense. I would expect this library to always follow USWDS and if the VA design system diverges from that then we have to figure what the right approach to USFS is on the VA.gov side.

[easherma]

As discussed on Slack, I think we're fine with incorporating this into 1.x so that the VA will have consistency now. To be clear, though, it's likely to be a dead end.

Longer term it is highly likely that if USFS is opinionated on this issue it will lean towards the USWDS 2.0 recommendation to mark optional fields. I would think that required fields are more common than optional ones in most forms. Denoting just the optional fields reduces both visual and audio clutter.

I also doubt this is a place where we'd just "add a flag to do it either way" because it would be really confusing to have government websites varying on something this fundamental.

Working here with the City of Austin and we have an officer complaint form where most fields are optional, so I agree with the need for consistency with USWDS, but there are certainly use cases where the majority of fields may be optional.