Closed lseeman closed 7 years ago
For completeness, adding my comments here from the November 2016 survey:
"Fully describe the input's function" - does this mean that even standard, inputs, and how the user interacts with them, need to be explained? E.g. for a <select>
, explain that the user can set focus on the control, use ALT+arrow down to open it, etc? And, as standard controls will vary in how they're operated in different contexts (e.g. on a mobile touchscreen device vs a desktop keyboard environment), how can this be achieved?
"Use the default format and standards for localized content in the location of the user and allow for changes of format on labels and user input." This would require either some potentially very complex client- or server-side scripting implementation (to ascertain the user's locale, and adapt the output accordingly), and the "and allow..." essentially makes it a requirement for any site with inputs to offer settings/customisation options. Also, in terms of testing, would an auditor be required to somehow set their test environment to all possible locales, in order to ascertain if the site then adapts to this correctly?
"Explain where to get the required information." the exceptions are vague at best, and the note talks about "where user testing has shown that the information is known by the intended audience". who is supposed to do the user testing to inform if something's a pass or fail? are multiple auditors, doing different user testing sessions, likely to then come to the same conclusion? this is likely highly subjective.
Additionally, having this as Level A seems...ambitious.
All of the symbol examples need to be moved to Issue 50, Extra Symbols.
Issue 45 Extra help (beginner's help) also covers much of this SC. What is the difference between instructions and beginners help? The overlap is confusing. The Pass Fail Examples are examples of personalization and not of labels and instructions. They should be moved to Issue 6. They may be residuals from the SC being split as noted in the Working Group comments. Patrick's comments on the testing, the challenges of localized content in a global Web, required information, and the complexity of code required for the enhancements being proposed are quite valid. I think this present 3.3.2 should continue as it currently written, and (possibly) reference Issue 45 on beginner's help. The Techniques to be written for Beginner's Help could be applied to 3.3.2 to give developers greater guidance on how to write instructions.
While I have never liked how 2.4.6 and 3.3.2 intermingle, I believe how this guidance has been modified here does not improve the situation. In the current 2.0 form, 3.3.2 is primarily concerned with the existence of labels or instructions for inputs. 2.4.6 is primarily concerned with the meaning of the label. Yes, one could make the argument that they are backward, regarding whether they enable operation or understanding. But if the changes here are to be considered, I think a matching revision of 2.4.6 would be necessary. As I’ve noted elsewhere, something that substantially changes existing 2.0 guidance is going to make it very hard to transition or report to both 2.0 and 2.1 and any standards based on them.
Fully describe the input's function
I have significant concerns about the inclusion of “fully” here. It seems to directly contradict the principle of clear and brief guidance in 2.4.6. With this guidance, will some users believe that it is appropriate and encouraged to replace the label “First name” with “Type your first given name in the textbox” On a related matter, perhaps one thing worth revisiting is the idea of separating labels and instructions. A label uniquely and meaningfully designates an input. Instructions contain additional information on its purpose or input requirements.
Use the default format and standards for localized content in the location of the user and allow for changes of format on labels and user input. An exception is provided where any standard format is accepted.
I find this problematic, or at least unclear. Are you saying that the user preference for default locale should be adopted? For example, I live in Canada, and there are 3 common date formats: US (mm-dd-yy), British (dd-mm-yy) and international (yyyy-mm-dd). I have the third chosen on my OS. Some software apps adopt this. Others allow me to alter it in a user preference in the app. There is no default ‘locale/location’, unless you mean the default chosen by the OS at installation.
Explain where to get the required information
It’s hard to know how literal this is. Where is the list of what information is known by an intended audience, and by “known” what exactly do you mean? Do you mean memorized? Common?
Instructions on how to get information, depending on the context, may be incredibly complex or simple. Many people may not know their cellphone numbers. Do I have to include directions on how to look that up for each OS? How would you include info on how to get a postal code? Alternately, does one need to include information on how to find a driver’s licence number on a field that asks for a driver’s licence?
Does all such guidance need to be in the UI? You can see how this could become a real design mess. What about options for a supporting or accompanying document, such as one gets for tax completion. The tax form itself contains no explanation. The user looks up guidance if required in the supporting document.
This bullet just seems to be incredibly variable, and I don’t see how it can be enforced/verified/adopted.
For example, when asking for a passport number...
So, here is an example of the complexity this poses for a UI designer. Do I have to include an image for every nationality passport that is a potential audience? How about versions of passports? Do I need to include passport cards as well?
To fully describe an input's function, the wording on the label needs to be unambiguous so that the function is clear. For example if there are more than one forms on a page, having more than one labeled "go" is not clear and the user is likely to make a mistake and go to the wrong place.
This is already covered by Consistent Identification for multiple pages. It is also inferred on 2.4.6. I would advocate that the concept of not using the same label for items that result in different actions should be made explicit in the existing SC. This is a different concept, to me, than “fully describe”. All it need state is that where the same label occurs, it must describe the same control and function; two different functions should not be labelled the same.
the scope of the task should be completely clear via a technique such as adding an instruction in a tool tip or help icon.
I think this whole rewrite of 3.3.2 would benefit significantly from a clearer division between labels and instructions. Labels should provide clear designation. Instructions should provide context and elaboration. If you look at how the current techniques are formed, there is a technique for G131 Providing descriptive labels, and then many ancillary techniques for adding info about the field. But there is not a lot of clear guidance on instructions. I believe tactically it makes sense to introduce a few key Instruction techniques that cover what you are advocating here, and provide that guidance inside the technique more than inside the SC.
For example, an assignment in an e-learning course...
This example seems to have no bearing on the first part of the paragraph.
I have a lot of feedback on the Testability and Techniques sections I could provide, but I think this is sufficient feedback for now.
Current versions of SC and Definitions
Labels or Instructions
user testing - this has been defined in other SC's
In some cases a full description of an input's function maybe not be possible for example, if the description would be too verbose or if additional explanation is needed. Explaining where to get the required information can also be helpful for users with cognitive disabilities, giving them a point of reference to the required input. For example, an assignment in an e-learning course may require students to write essays using the "MLA Format for Essays and Research Papers" and provide an indication for this requirement along with a link on how to write in this format along with an example.
Working groups notes
Lisa: I took out the following example as I do not think it is the primary intent. .....it is common for a feedback or contact form to include a text area input field which is used by the user to enter the message he or she would like to submit. Often users are directed to the same contact form regardless of the reason for their communication. For example, someone wanting to get more information about site membership or registration may be directed to the same form as someone who has a question about one of the products or services offered on the site. There may be a label such as "message" associated with the input field however if there are not selectable options to indicate the type of message or the reason the user is sending the message users with cognitive disabilities may not remember the reason for their intended communication or may be confused about the function of the text area field.