search

w3c / wcag

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/
Other
1.13k stars 256 forks source link

Removing 'and/or the optional fields are clearly labeled' from 3.3.2 seems to significantly change the meaning #3795

Open joelanman opened 6 months ago

joelanman commented 6 months ago

This PR removed this line from 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions

In a form which contains both required and optional fields, the required fields and/or the optional fields are clearly labeled as such.

https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1792/files

This seems like a significant (potentially breaking) change, as it implies the technique of only marking optional fields is no longer compliant. Is that the intention?

patrickhlauke commented 6 months ago

that aspect is arguably something that is covered (or should be covered) by 2.4.6 Headings and Labels (as that SC is concerned with the quality of headings and labels), whereas 3.3.2 is concerned with the mere presence of labels/instructions (regardless of how good/comprehensive/accurate they are) - per the discussions that led to https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1792 in the first place

because otherwise, conversely, if we said 3.3.2 is also concerned with the quality of labels or instructions, then we have an overlap for labels that both 2.4.6 and 3.3.2 mandate the same thing.

patrickhlauke commented 6 months ago

so a possibly better resolution for me would be to make sure that 2.4.6 also mentions/covers the "if something's required, or optional, it should be conveyed appropriately in the label" case

joelanman commented 6 months ago

thanks, if that was the intention, should this also be removed from 3.3.2?

including identification of required fields

patrickhlauke commented 6 months ago

probably. might have some leftover bits of eggshell there while making the WCAG omelette

bruce-usab commented 4 months ago

@joelanman do you have a suggestion for changes to Understanding? Patrick significantly improved, but the interplay between 3.3.2 and 2.4.6 remains an issue for some people.

joelanman commented 4 months ago

I don't, I'm just concerned that this appears to be a breaking change as it currently stands. It used to say that marking optional fields was valid, and now it doesn't. I already made a suggestion above that if the intention is to avoid mandating marking required fields in 3.3.2, that it should be removed entirely as there is still mention of it.

cliffbert commented 4 months ago

https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3795#issuecomment-2071907768

that aspect is arguably something that is covered (or should be covered) by 2.4.6 Headings and Labels (as that SC is concerned with the quality of headings and labels), whereas 3.3.2 is concerned with the mere presence of labels/instructions (regardless of how good/comprehensive/accurate they are) - per the discussions that led to #1792 in the first place

because otherwise, conversely, if we said 3.3.2 is also concerned with the quality of labels or instructions, then we have an overlap for labels that both 2.4.6 and 3.3.2 mandate the same thing.

As Bruce mentioned, there are concerns that 3.3.2 seems to leave quality of labels to 2.4.6:

"While this Success Criterion requires that controls and inputs have labels or instructions, whether or not labels (if used) are sufficiently clear or descriptive is covered separately by 2.4.6: Headings and Labels

but on the other hand also says

Goal Users know what information to enter.

and

The intent of this Success Criterion is to have content authors present instructions or labels that identify the controls in a form so that users know what input data is expected. In the case of radio buttons, checkboxes, comboboxes, or similar controls that provide users with options, each option must have an appropriate label so that users know what they are actually selecting

... which seems to speak to the quality of instructions or labels.

joelanman commented 4 months ago

it would be good to get clarification on whether it was intended to remove only labelling optional fields as meeting wcag, if so this would appear to break backwards compatibility? If not could this be restored somewhere?

davidofyork commented 3 months ago

Picking up this issue again...

As I commented previously, surely these changes in #1792 go against the intent (if not the normative wording) of 3.3.2? If you remove any need for clarity or quality or accuracy, then what is the benefit of conforming to this SC? Picking up from https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3795#issuecomment-2071907768, you're effectively saying that anything goes, as long as it looks like a label or instruction. How does that help?

Also, if any requirement for clarity or descriptiveness is punted squarely to 2.4.6, why list G131: Providing descriptive labels as a sufficient technique?

At the very least, accuracy should be an explicit expectation of 3.3.2 (in that, the label or instruction must identify/explain what the control does). Whether it does that clearly or sufficiently descriptively is then a matter for 2.4.6.

And with regard to indicating required fields, is this expected by 3.3.2 or not? The edits leave it very ambiguous.

One of the listed benefits of 3.3.2 is "Providing labels and instructions (including identification of required fields) can prevent users from making incomplete or incorrect form submissions". However, #1792 excised the example "In a form which contains both required and optional fields, the required fields and/or the optional fields are clearly labeled as such." There has also been no corresponding addition to 2.4.6 that picks up what was shed from 3.3.2.

mbgower commented 3 months ago

it would be good to get clarification on whether it was intended to remove only labelling optional fields as meeting wcag, if so this would appear to break backwards compatibility? If not could this be restored somewhere?

It's important to emphasize this is an Understanding document, and not a technique document. Further, sufficient techniques are not exhaustive and "There may be other ways to meet success criteria besides the sufficient techniques." A sufficient technique shows one way of meeting the requirements, not the only way. Unless there is a failure technique generated that says labelling optional fields is a failure, then the absence of information in the Understanding document does not and should not be interpreted as saying one cannot meet WCAG by the technique of marking fields "optional".

See Understanding Techniques for WCAG 2 Success Criteria for more details.

Finally, please see https://github.com/w3c/wcag/discussions/3622