E-mail List Archives
Re: WCAG 2.1 SC 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose - TestingMethodology
From: Jared Smith
Date: Oct 2, 2018 10:58AM
- Next message: Isabel Holdsworth: "Re: Tab order of interactive elements"
- Previous message: Jonathan Avila: "Re: WCAG 2.1 SC 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose - TestingMethodology"
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: Jonathan Avila: "Re: WCAG 2.1 SC 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose - TestingMethodology"
- View all messages in this Thread
> >(imagine an online HR form that collects multiple "First names").
>
> As a manual tester, should each of these get the "given-name" and or some with "additional-name" even though there may be more than one of each of these
I'm not sure. This is why John presented this as an edge case. It can
be difficult to know *which* autocomplete values are correct in this
case. By a strict interpretation, it's a failure if all of the first
name fields don't have an autocomplete attribute value, and it's also
a failure if an incorrect autocomplete value is defined (such as
given-name or additional-name for more than one field?).
> and if they are present is that a pass even if in practicality any AT/browser/software which would be assisting someone wouldn't know the differentiation either (the label string would have to do that)?
This is precisely the problem. If the end user relies on the
autocomplete attribute to guide their browser or software to complete
the form, and if the autocomplete values are ambiguous (e.g., multiple
given-name or additional-name), then it could actually lead to errant
input, even if interpreted to be WCAG conformant.
Jared
- Next message: Isabel Holdsworth: "Re: Tab order of interactive elements"
- Previous message: Jonathan Avila: "Re: WCAG 2.1 SC 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose - TestingMethodology"
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: Jonathan Avila: "Re: WCAG 2.1 SC 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose - TestingMethodology"
- View all messages in this Thread