W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Error Prevention Guideline

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2021-07-22 to 2021-07-27.

9 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Approval to move to CFC
Approval to move "Input Instructions Provided" outcome and related methods to CFC

1. Approval to move to CFC

Can we move the revised Error Prevention Guideline to CFC for addition to the next update of WCAG 3?

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Agree	5
Agree with the following changes	2
Disagree for the following reason	1

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder	Approval to move to CFC	Comments
JaEun Jemma Ku	Agree
Gundula Niemann	Disagree for the following reason	The link called "Error Prevention how-to", pointing to https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2021/how-tos/error-prevention/ leads to a page titled "Input Instructions Provided" which contains no further content. The link named "Outcome, details, and methods for Input instructions provided" pointing to https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2021/outcomes/input-instructions-provided leads to a page with the same title which is filled. It is unclear, whether the Methods are normative. If so, they should rather be called subcriteria or the like to avoid misunderstandings. Input instructions are not sufficient to prevent errors. So either other parts should be integrated, or the requirement should restrict to input instruction. For example, none of the points from WCAG 2.1, 3.3.4, Level AA, Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data) is contained.
Rain Breaw Michaels	Agree with the following changes	I found this statement to be confusing: "Any input that has specific data requirements (e.g., date, password) that is provided without instructions." Suggested revision: "Any input that has specific data requirements (e.g., date, password) that does not include perceivable and understandable instructions." I can live without the changes, but hope that this will be revisited in a clear language review.
Jeanne F Spellman	Agree
Bruce Bailey	Agree
Andrew Kirkpatrick	Agree
David MacDonald	Agree with the following changes
Laura Carlson	Agree
Jonathan Avila

2. Approval to move "Input Instructions Provided" outcome and related methods to CFC

Can we move the new Input Instructions Provided and associated Methods to CFC for addition to the next update of WCAG 3?

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Agree	4
Agree with the following changes
Disagree for the following reason	5

Details

Responder	Approval to move "Input Instructions Provided" outcome and related methods to CFC	Comments
JaEun Jemma Ku	Agree
Gundula Niemann	Disagree for the following reason	It is unclear, whether the Methods are normative. If so, they should rather be called subcriteria or the like to avoid misunderstandings. In instructions for completing tasks, what kind and level of instruction is needed highly depends on the target user group. For example, dates usually are requested in the format that belongs to the user's locale. So the explicit format usually is sufficient to be shown in the error message. On the other hand: Is it sufficient to show the example or pattern in the placeholder text? What about input help to avoid errors, like a date picker? In required inputs indicated it does not become clear whether a verbal description of the indicator is mandatory. Some examples contain it, some do not. One example contains it twice referring to different indicators. I feel 'Instructions for completing tasks' and 'Instructions available at source of input' overlap.
Rain Breaw Michaels	Agree	Suggest considering replacing "e.g.," with "example:" for understandability, text-to-speech reliability, and internationalization. The section about providing an example within the label itself concerns me. Some well meaning developers are likely to interpret this in such a way that causes them to create frustratingly long labels that screen-reader users will be stuck listening to. Would urge the team to consider removing this recommendation.
Jeanne F Spellman	Agree
Bruce Bailey	Agree
Andrew Kirkpatrick	Disagree for the following reason	The procedure is requiring color contrast tests - why just that test? This seems too restrictive. Every time a site asks for an email address they need to provide an example email? Do we have data to support this as a requirement?
David MacDonald	Disagree for the following reason	I think we need to have the discussion on whether evaluators have to manually count passing conditions before making a public working draft that includes an assumption that we have agreed on that.
Laura Carlson	Disagree for the following reason	* For "Method: Instructions available at the source of input" under "Test that instructions are persistent" Expected Results, is there a missing "Credit: 1"? https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2021/methods/instructions-available-at-input/#tests-button What is Credit: 1? Needs an explanation. * Under "Test that instructions are predictably located" what is a "standard location"? Can that be defined? https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2021/methods/instructions-available-at-input/#tests-button
Jonathan Avila	Disagree for the following reason	One issue is that we may have is that it feels like some specifics that were in success criteria before have been moved into methods. The methods are not normative and thus moving them out with more general outcomes create some challenges in actually requiring them to be done. Methods while similar to techniques actually seem to be more than techniques - they seem to be a combination of things that need to be required when applicable and also provide technology specific examples. It's almost like we need an additional layer or move more items up into the outcomes.