E-mail List Archives
Thread: Required Fields and Username / Password on a Website
Number of posts in this thread: 18 (In chronological order)
From: Elle
Date: Mon, Jul 23 2012 5:02PM
Subject: Required Fields and Username / Password on a Website
No previous message | Next message →
All:
We're redesigning our website, and there's discussion about whether any
indication of required fields is necessary for "username" and password" to
sign into the member portal. All the Section 508 and WCAG 2.0
documentation I see seems to state that it's a violation if you don't
indicate "this field is required" by either an asterisk, an image, text
(ex. "required"), or grouping like fields together by validation. However,
the WCAG content seems more for multiple form fields. On the
Section508.gov website, the Search text input field responds like a
required field (it has a validation / error prompt if you hit Submit
without entering text), but there is no indication that Search is a
required field to successfully Submit. My UX team is telling me that
Username and Password are obviously required if you want to sign in on a
website, and that even an asterisk is unnecessary. So, my questions are:
1. Is it necessary (to meet conformance requirements) to have an
asterisk next to Username and Password for a sign-in widget on a website?
2. If the guidance text ** Required* exists near the top of the page,
can we remove it from a similar sign-in widget on the left rail?
Thanks very much,
Elle
From: Jeevan Reddy
Date: Tue, Jul 24 2012 12:33AM
Subject: Re: Required Fields and Username / Password on a Website
← Previous message | Next message →
L,
Though the user name and password fields default required, for the
common user point of you, including visible required field indicator
is good option.
For the conformance view, you can either offscreen the "*/required" or
use Aria-Required property in case design doesn't prompt you to use
visible indicators.
On 7/24/12, Elle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> All:
>
> We're redesigning our website, and there's discussion about whether any
> indication of required fields is necessary for "username" and password" to
> sign into the member portal. All the Section 508 and WCAG 2.0
> documentation I see seems to state that it's a violation if you don't
> indicate "this field is required" by either an asterisk, an image, text
> (ex. "required"), or grouping like fields together by validation. However,
> the WCAG content seems more for multiple form fields. On the
> Section508.gov website, the Search text input field responds like a
> required field (it has a validation / error prompt if you hit Submit
> without entering text), but there is no indication that Search is a
> required field to successfully Submit. My UX team is telling me that
> Username and Password are obviously required if you want to sign in on a
> website, and that even an asterisk is unnecessary. So, my questions are:
>
>
> 1. Is it necessary (to meet conformance requirements) to have an
> asterisk next to Username and Password for a sign-in widget on a
> website?
> 2. If the guidance text ** Required* exists near the top of the page,
> can we remove it from a similar sign-in widget on the left rail?
>
>
> Thanks very much,
> Elle
> > > >
--
Best Regards,
Jeevan Reddy,
Accessibility Consultant,
Onya Digital Solutions Pvt Ltd,
Bangalore, India.
From: Srinivasu Chakravarthula
Date: Tue, Jul 24 2012 12:34AM
Subject: Re: Required Fields and Username / Password on a Website
← Previous message | Next message →
My take is this:
If you are going to use some additional fields like "Remember me" or "Jump
to:" like we see on some financial related portals like Etrade, it would be
necessary to indicate user name and password are mandatory, since the other
fields would be optional. But If you just have user name and password, I
think, it should not logically require to be indicated.
Thanks,
-Vasu
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Elle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> All:
>
> We're redesigning our website, and there's discussion about whether any
> indication of required fields is necessary for "username" and password" to
> sign into the member portal. All the Section 508 and WCAG 2.0
> documentation I see seems to state that it's a violation if you don't
> indicate "this field is required" by either an asterisk, an image, text
> (ex. "required"), or grouping like fields together by validation. However,
> the WCAG content seems more for multiple form fields. On the
> Section508.gov website, the Search text input field responds like a
> required field (it has a validation / error prompt if you hit Submit
> without entering text), but there is no indication that Search is a
> required field to successfully Submit. My UX team is telling me that
> Username and Password are obviously required if you want to sign in on a
> website, and that even an asterisk is unnecessary. So, my questions are:
>
>
> 1. Is it necessary (to meet conformance requirements) to have an
> asterisk next to Username and Password for a sign-in widget on a
> website?
> 2. If the guidance text ** Required* exists near the top of the page,
> can we remove it from a similar sign-in widget on the left rail?
>
>
> Thanks very much,
> Elle
> > > >
--
Regards,
Srinivasu Chakravarthula - Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/VasuTweets
Website: http://www.srinivasu.org | http://www.learnaccessibility.org
Let's create an inclusive web!
From: Srinivasu Chakravarthula
Date: Tue, Jul 24 2012 3:00AM
Subject: Re: Required Fields and Username / Password on a Website
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Jeevan and others,
If we decide to include indication, it "must" be visible. Putting the same
as off-screen or aroa-required would be helpful to users with vision
impairment, but the indication would be more helpful to those having
cognitive disabilities.
Thanks,
-Srini
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Jeevan Reddy
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> L,
> Though the user name and password fields default required, for the
> common user point of you, including visible required field indicator
> is good option.
> For the conformance view, you can either offscreen the "*/required" or
> use Aria-Required property in case design doesn't prompt you to use
> visible indicators.
>
> On 7/24/12, Elle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > All:
> >
> > We're redesigning our website, and there's discussion about whether any
> > indication of required fields is necessary for "username" and password"
> to
> > sign into the member portal. All the Section 508 and WCAG 2.0
> > documentation I see seems to state that it's a violation if you don't
> > indicate "this field is required" by either an asterisk, an image, text
> > (ex. "required"), or grouping like fields together by validation.
> However,
> > the WCAG content seems more for multiple form fields. On the
> > Section508.gov website, the Search text input field responds like a
> > required field (it has a validation / error prompt if you hit Submit
> > without entering text), but there is no indication that Search is a
> > required field to successfully Submit. My UX team is telling me that
> > Username and Password are obviously required if you want to sign in on a
> > website, and that even an asterisk is unnecessary. So, my questions are:
> >
> >
> > 1. Is it necessary (to meet conformance requirements) to have an
> > asterisk next to Username and Password for a sign-in widget on a
> > website?
> > 2. If the guidance text ** Required* exists near the top of the page,
> > can we remove it from a similar sign-in widget on the left rail?
> >
> >
> > Thanks very much,
> > Elle
> > > > > > > >
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Jeevan Reddy,
> Accessibility Consultant,
> Onya Digital Solutions Pvt Ltd,
> Bangalore, India.
> > > >
--
Regards,
Srinivasu Chakravarthula - Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/VasuTweets
Website: http://www.srinivasu.org | http://www.learnaccessibility.org
Let's create an inclusive web!
From: Jeevan Reddy
Date: Tue, Jul 24 2012 3:35AM
Subject: Re: Required Fields and Username / Password on a Website
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Srini,
You are right, but the required fields are meant to tell the user
to fill certain fields among many to get the access, but in sign in
widget has default mandatory fields known to everyone. To enhance
accessibility without compramising on design i suggest to use screen
off or aria method.
On 7/24/12, Srinivasu Chakravarthula < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi Jeevan and others,
> If we decide to include indication, it "must" be visible. Putting the same
> as off-screen or aroa-required would be helpful to users with vision
> impairment, but the indication would be more helpful to those having
> cognitive disabilities.
>
> Thanks,
> -Srini
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Jeevan Reddy
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
>
>> L,
>> Though the user name and password fields default required, for the
>> common user point of you, including visible required field indicator
>> is good option.
>> For the conformance view, you can either offscreen the "*/required" or
>> use Aria-Required property in case design doesn't prompt you to use
>> visible indicators.
>>
>> On 7/24/12, Elle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> > All:
>> >
>> > We're redesigning our website, and there's discussion about whether any
>> > indication of required fields is necessary for "username" and password"
>> to
>> > sign into the member portal. All the Section 508 and WCAG 2.0
>> > documentation I see seems to state that it's a violation if you don't
>> > indicate "this field is required" by either an asterisk, an image, text
>> > (ex. "required"), or grouping like fields together by validation.
>> However,
>> > the WCAG content seems more for multiple form fields. On the
>> > Section508.gov website, the Search text input field responds like a
>> > required field (it has a validation / error prompt if you hit Submit
>> > without entering text), but there is no indication that Search is a
>> > required field to successfully Submit. My UX team is telling me that
>> > Username and Password are obviously required if you want to sign in on
>> > a
>> > website, and that even an asterisk is unnecessary. So, my questions
>> > are:
>> >
>> >
>> > 1. Is it necessary (to meet conformance requirements) to have an
>> > asterisk next to Username and Password for a sign-in widget on a
>> > website?
>> > 2. If the guidance text ** Required* exists near the top of the
>> > page,
>> > can we remove it from a similar sign-in widget on the left rail?
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks very much,
>> > Elle
>> > >> > >> > >> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>> Jeevan Reddy,
>> Accessibility Consultant,
>> Onya Digital Solutions Pvt Ltd,
>> Bangalore, India.
>> >> >> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Srinivasu Chakravarthula - Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/VasuTweets
> Website: http://www.srinivasu.org | http://www.learnaccessibility.org
>
> Let's create an inclusive web!
> > > >
--
Best Regards,
Jeevan Reddy,
Accessibility Consultant,
Onya Digital Solutions Pvt Ltd,
Bangalore, India.
From: Srinivasu Chakravarthula
Date: Tue, Jul 24 2012 3:43AM
Subject: Re: Required Fields and Username / Password on a Website
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Jeevan,
I got your point. If we have this indication "off-screen" or with
"aria-required", is that available to all the users? No, the information
would only be available to screen reader or text only browsers only.
Again, if user is having learning disability, not necessary, he / she
should know the both user name / password are mandatory.
Thanks,
-Srini
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Jeevan Reddy < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> Hi Srini,
> You are right, but the required fields are meant to tell the user
> to fill certain fields among many to get the access, but in sign in
> widget has default mandatory fields known to everyone. To enhance
> accessibility without compramising on design i suggest to use screen
> off or aria method.
>
> On 7/24/12, Srinivasu Chakravarthula < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Hi Jeevan and others,
> > If we decide to include indication, it "must" be visible. Putting the
> same
> > as off-screen or aroa-required would be helpful to users with vision
> > impairment, but the indication would be more helpful to those having
> > cognitive disabilities.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Srini
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Jeevan Reddy
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> >
> >> L,
> >> Though the user name and password fields default required, for the
> >> common user point of you, including visible required field indicator
> >> is good option.
> >> For the conformance view, you can either offscreen the "*/required" or
> >> use Aria-Required property in case design doesn't prompt you to use
> >> visible indicators.
> >>
> >> On 7/24/12, Elle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >> > All:
> >> >
> >> > We're redesigning our website, and there's discussion about whether
> any
> >> > indication of required fields is necessary for "username" and
> password"
> >> to
> >> > sign into the member portal. All the Section 508 and WCAG 2.0
> >> > documentation I see seems to state that it's a violation if you don't
> >> > indicate "this field is required" by either an asterisk, an image,
> text
> >> > (ex. "required"), or grouping like fields together by validation.
> >> However,
> >> > the WCAG content seems more for multiple form fields. On the
> >> > Section508.gov website, the Search text input field responds like a
> >> > required field (it has a validation / error prompt if you hit Submit
> >> > without entering text), but there is no indication that Search is a
> >> > required field to successfully Submit. My UX team is telling me that
> >> > Username and Password are obviously required if you want to sign in on
> >> > a
> >> > website, and that even an asterisk is unnecessary. So, my questions
> >> > are:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 1. Is it necessary (to meet conformance requirements) to have an
> >> > asterisk next to Username and Password for a sign-in widget on a
> >> > website?
> >> > 2. If the guidance text ** Required* exists near the top of the
> >> > page,
> >> > can we remove it from a similar sign-in widget on the left rail?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thanks very much,
> >> > Elle
> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Jeevan Reddy,
> >> Accessibility Consultant,
> >> Onya Digital Solutions Pvt Ltd,
> >> Bangalore, India.
> >> > >> > >> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Srinivasu Chakravarthula - Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/VasuTweets
> > Website: http://www.srinivasu.org | http://www.learnaccessibility.org
> >
> > Let's create an inclusive web!
> > > > > > > >
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Jeevan Reddy,
> Accessibility Consultant,
> Onya Digital Solutions Pvt Ltd,
> Bangalore, India.
> > > >
--
Regards,
Srinivasu Chakravarthula - Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/VasuTweets
Website: http://www.srinivasu.org | http://www.learnaccessibility.org
Let's create an inclusive web!
From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Tue, Jul 24 2012 9:11PM
Subject: Re: Required Fields and Username / Password on a Website
← Previous message | Next message →
Elle,
> 2. If the guidance text ** Required* exists near the top of the page,
> can we remove it from a similar sign-in widget on the left rail?
I would need to see a mock up of the page. There could be a lot of
content between the **Required** and the form. If you don't want to
repeat the **req**, I would say throw an aria-required="true" on the
inputs or throw an aria-describedby on the label (if that is valid).
--
Ryan E. Benson
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Elle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> All:
>
> We're redesigning our website, and there's discussion about whether any
> indication of required fields is necessary for "username" and password" to
> sign into the member portal. All the Section 508 and WCAG 2.0
> documentation I see seems to state that it's a violation if you don't
> indicate "this field is required" by either an asterisk, an image, text
> (ex. "required"), or grouping like fields together by validation. However,
> the WCAG content seems more for multiple form fields. On the
> Section508.gov website, the Search text input field responds like a
> required field (it has a validation / error prompt if you hit Submit
> without entering text), but there is no indication that Search is a
> required field to successfully Submit. My UX team is telling me that
> Username and Password are obviously required if you want to sign in on a
> website, and that even an asterisk is unnecessary. So, my questions are:
>
>
> 1. Is it necessary (to meet conformance requirements) to have an
> asterisk next to Username and Password for a sign-in widget on a website?
> 2. If the guidance text ** Required* exists near the top of the page,
> can we remove it from a similar sign-in widget on the left rail?
>
>
> Thanks very much,
> Elle
> > >
From: Sailesh Panchang
Date: Wed, Jul 25 2012 7:39AM
Subject: Re: Required Fields and Username / Password on a Website
← Previous message | Next message →
> 1. Is it necessary (to meet conformance requirements) to have an
> asterisk next to Username and Password for a sign-in widget on a website?
For a log-in form or any other, if there is no indication (via text /
asterisk / color or other visual cue) to distinguish required and
optional fields, no user can tell which field is required. The UI
design / functional specs apparently did not require it. Then where is
the accessibility probblem?
In this situation, there is no need for any cue that is available only
to an AT user or a person with a disability.
(In case an input validation error is flagged, that should be
accessible but that is a separate issue).
On the other hand If a star or text or color or other indicator is
visibly available to mark required fields, then that must be conveyed
in a manner that is accessible and programmatically determinable.
Sailesh Panchang
On 7/23/12, Elle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> All:
>
> We're redesigning our website, and there's discussion about whether any
> indication of required fields is necessary for "username" and password" to
> sign into the member portal. All the Section 508 and WCAG 2.0
> documentation I see seems to state that it's a violation if you don't
> indicate "this field is required" by either an asterisk, an image, text
> (ex. "required"), or grouping like fields together by validation. However,
> the WCAG content seems more for multiple form fields. On the
> Section508.gov website, the Search text input field responds like a
> required field (it has a validation / error prompt if you hit Submit
> without entering text), but there is no indication that Search is a
> required field to successfully Submit. My UX team is telling me that
> Username and Password are obviously required if you want to sign in on a
> website, and that even an asterisk is unnecessary. So, my questions are:
>
>
> 1. Is it necessary (to meet conformance requirements) to have an
> asterisk next to Username and Password for a sign-in widget on a
> website?
> 2. If the guidance text ** Required* exists near the top of the page,
> can we remove it from a similar sign-in widget on the left rail?
>
>
> Thanks very much,
> Elle
> > > >
From: Rakesh
Date: Wed, Jul 25 2012 8:04AM
Subject: Re: Required Fields and Username / Password on a Website
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi,
On a sign in page we will have only "User id and pass word text fields
and they are required for any one who needs to log in to the portal. I
don't think it is necessary to inform the user with "*" or any other
equivalent option.
On 7/25/2012 7:09 PM, Sailesh Panchang wrote:
>> 1. Is it necessary (to meet conformance requirements) to have an
>> asterisk next to Username and Password for a sign-in widget on a website?
> For a log-in form or any other, if there is no indication (via text /
> asterisk / color or other visual cue) to distinguish required and
> optional fields, no user can tell which field is required. The UI
> design / functional specs apparently did not require it. Then where is
> the accessibility probblem?
> In this situation, there is no need for any cue that is available only
> to an AT user or a person with a disability.
> (In case an input validation error is flagged, that should be
> accessible but that is a separate issue).
> On the other hand If a star or text or color or other indicator is
> visibly available to mark required fields, then that must be conveyed
> in a manner that is accessible and programmatically determinable.
> Sailesh Panchang
>
>
> On 7/23/12, Elle< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> All:
>>
>> We're redesigning our website, and there's discussion about whether any
>> indication of required fields is necessary for "username" and password" to
>> sign into the member portal. All the Section 508 and WCAG 2.0
>> documentation I see seems to state that it's a violation if you don't
>> indicate "this field is required" by either an asterisk, an image, text
>> (ex. "required"), or grouping like fields together by validation. However,
>> the WCAG content seems more for multiple form fields. On the
>> Section508.gov website, the Search text input field responds like a
>> required field (it has a validation / error prompt if you hit Submit
>> without entering text), but there is no indication that Search is a
>> required field to successfully Submit. My UX team is telling me that
>> Username and Password are obviously required if you want to sign in on a
>> website, and that even an asterisk is unnecessary. So, my questions are:
>>
>>
>> 1. Is it necessary (to meet conformance requirements) to have an
>> asterisk next to Username and Password for a sign-in widget on a
>> website?
>> 2. If the guidance text ** Required* exists near the top of the page,
>> can we remove it from a similar sign-in widget on the left rail?
>>
>>
>> Thanks very much,
>> Elle
>> >> >> >>
> > >
From: Elle
Date: Wed, Jul 25 2012 8:46AM
Subject: Re: Required Fields and Username / Password on a Website
← Previous message | Next message →
Sailesh:
I agree that it should be an equivalent experience for sighted and
non-sighted users (hence, why hidden text alone is not sufficient).
However, what I'd like to see is where in WCAG I can justify not
indicating that Username and Password are required. If I make exceptions
outside of WCAG 2.0, that introduces the opportunity for many more
discussions on what other items we can disregard.
Thanks,
Elle
From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Wed, Jul 25 2012 9:01AM
Subject: Re: Required Fields and Username / Password on a Website
← Previous message | Next message →
Elle,
Perhaps the best way to approach this is by adopting a rule for required and optional fields.
If all fields are required, then there doesn't need to be any indicators next to the fields.
If only some fields are required or optional, then the UI needs to indicate in an accessible manner which fields are either required or optional.
If all fields are optional, then the instructions for the form need to indicate clearly that all fields are optional.
That isn't necessarily written in WCAG 2.0, but it should provide a good consistent rule that you can apply across UI's without too much concern that someone will misuse it and create something that is not consistent with WCAG 2.0.
From: Jared Smith
Date: Wed, Jul 25 2012 9:06AM
Subject: Re: Required Fields and Username / Password on a Website
← Previous message | Next message →
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Elle wrote:
> However, what I'd like to see is where in WCAG I can justify not
> indicating that Username and Password are required.
Success Criterion 3.3.2 (Level A) states, "Labels or instructions are
provided when content requires user input." Note the word "or". It's a
bit ambiguous on this topic, but if it's apparent from the
presentation of a simple form that all controls in the form are
required (such as a single search field or username/password for a log
in form), I'd think that all necessary
instructions are provided via the labels alone. The only additional
requirement seems to be that if the user submits the form without the
required fields that there be a descriptive error AFTER submission
which indicates the required field(s).
Jared
From: Elle
Date: Wed, Jul 25 2012 10:24AM
Subject: Re: Required Fields and Username / Password on a Website
← Previous message | Next message →
Thank you!!
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Elle wrote:
>
> > However, what I'd like to see is where in WCAG I can justify not
> > indicating that Username and Password are required.
>
> Success Criterion 3.3.2 (Level A) states, "Labels or instructions are
> provided when content requires user input." Note the word "or". It's a
> bit ambiguous on this topic, but if it's apparent from the
> presentation of a simple form that all controls in the form are
> required (such as a single search field or username/password for a log
> in form), I'd think that all necessary
> instructions are provided via the labels alone. The only additional
> requirement seems to be that if the user submits the form without the
> required fields that there be a descriptive error AFTER submission
> which indicates the required field(s).
>
> Jared
> > > >
--
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the people to gather wood,
divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast
and endless sea.
- Antoine De Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince
From: Stella Mudd
Date: Wed, Jul 25 2012 10:25AM
Subject: Re: Required Fields and Username / Password on a Website
← Previous message | Next message →
Jared,
I'm afraid that by not adding necessary required indication for even login
pages, it could render the page virtually unusable for users with cognitive
disabilities.
Best,
Stella
On Wednesday, July 25, 2012, Jared Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Elle wrote:
>
> > However, what I'd like to see is where in WCAG I can justify not
> > indicating that Username and Password are required.
>
> Success Criterion 3.3.2 (Level A) states, "Labels or instructions are
> provided when content requires user input." Note the word "or". It's a
> bit ambiguous on this topic, but if it's apparent from the
> presentation of a simple form that all controls in the form are
> required (such as a single search field or username/password for a log
> in form), I'd think that all necessary
> instructions are provided via the labels alone. The only additional
> requirement seems to be that if the user submits the form without the
> required fields that there be a descriptive error AFTER submission
> which indicates the required field(s).
>
> Jared
> > > >
From: Pratik Patel
Date: Wed, Jul 25 2012 10:29AM
Subject: Re: Required Fields and Username / Password on a Website
← Previous message | Next message →
From: Jared Smith
Date: Wed, Jul 25 2012 10:44AM
Subject: Re: Required Fields and Username / Password on a Website
← Previous message | Next message →
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Stella Mudd wrote:
> I'm afraid that by not adding necessary required indication for even login
> pages, it could render the page virtually unusable for users with cognitive
> disabilities.
I've never seen this. It's very reasonable to assume that a basic form
that has one or two fields requires those fields to be completed
before submitting the form. After all, why else would they activate a
"Submit" button if not to actually submit data? I can easily argue
that adding "required" or some other visual indication to such fields
would increase the cognitive load and render them less accessible to
everyone, especially those with some cognitive disabilities.
As I noted before, there would still be a need for error messages if
they happened to submit the form without completing the required
fields.
Jared
From: Stella Mudd
Date: Wed, Jul 25 2012 11:03AM
Subject: Re: Required Fields and Username / Password on a Website
← Previous message | Next message →
Interesting. I could easily argue the other way. I just don't like to
assume anything. Especially when legal matters are concerned.
On Wednesday, July 25, 2012, Jared Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Stella Mudd wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid that by not adding necessary required indication for even
> login
> > pages, it could render the page virtually unusable for users with
> cognitive
> > disabilities.
>
> I've never seen this. It's very reasonable to assume that a basic form
> that has one or two fields requires those fields to be completed
> before submitting the form. After all, why else would they activate a
> "Submit" button if not to actually submit data? I can easily argue
> that adding "required" or some other visual indication to such fields
> would increase the cognitive load and render them less accessible to
> everyone, especially those with some cognitive disabilities.
>
> As I noted before, there would still be a need for error messages if
> they happened to submit the form without completing the required
> fields.
>
> Jared
> > > >
From: Iza Bartosiewicz
Date: Wed, Jul 25 2012 6:21PM
Subject: Re: Required Fields and Username / Password on a Website
← Previous message | No next message
Hi Elle,
Compliance question aside, I think that adding 'required' (hidden or
visible) on a basic login page just adds to the cognitive load. Experienced
users don't need that reminder. As for the first-time users, they would
have been given the login and password details with instructions, or they
would have picked up their own details during the registration. Either way,
expecting users to know that both are required is reasonable.
It is more important to make sure that form fields are clearly labelled,
properly associated, and the validation is accessible.
----
Izabella Bartosiewicz
Web Coordinator
RMIT University Library
03 9925 3103
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.rmit.edu.au/library
www.linkedin.com/in/izabartosiewicz
twitter.com/mr0wka18 <http://www.twitter.com/mr0wka18>;