E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 3 (In chronological order)

From: glen walker
Date: Thu, May 12 2022 11:55AM
Subject: can redundant placeholder text be considered "incidental"?
No previous message | Next message →

We have a form with asterisks on the labels for required fields (and an
instruction line saying what the asterisk means).

So fields without an asterisk can be considered optional.

We also have placeholder text on the optional fields that says "optional".
It's redundant information because the label doesn't have an asterisk. It
kind of reinforces that the field is optional but isn't necessary to know
it's there.

Placeholder text typically fails color contrast. Would you consider
redundant placeholder text as "incidental" with regards to the exception in
1.4.3?

The placeholder text is not "part of an inactive user interface component"
so that part of the incidental text definition doesn't apply.

I also have a hard time applying "pure decoration" to the placeholder
although it's close. The normative definition (
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-pure-decoration) of "pure decoration" is
"serving only an aesthetic purpose, providing no information, and having no
functionality". In this case, the placeholder isn't really for aesthetic
purposes and it does provide information, albeit redundant information.
Maybe you could interpret it as aesthetic as a bit of a stretch.

The last part of the 1.4.3 incidental exception says "part of a picture
that contains significant other visual content". While the placeholder
text is not part of a picture, there is other significant visual content
(the field label, with or without the asterisk).

My preference is to have the placeholder have sufficient contrast. That's
just a better UX. But as you know, there are some companies looking at the
"checklist" approach to accessibility and want to (initially) fix only
things that strictly fail WCAG. I'm sure I could argue that it does fail,
but playing the devil's advocate, can you see a reason why it wouldn't
fail? My only thought is how to consider it "incidental" text.

From: glen walker
Date: Thu, May 12 2022 12:40PM
Subject: Re: can redundant placeholder text be considered "incidental"?
← Previous message | Next message →

One other piece of information, the placeholder text is not visible by
default. The label for the field displays "inside" the field so it looks
like a placeholder but when the field receives focus, the label font
shrinks a bit and moves up out of the way above the field so it's still
visible while the user types in the field. As soon as the label moves out
of the way, the "optional" placeholder text appears, again as redundant
information and of course disappears when you start typing.

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 11:55 AM glen walker < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> We have a form with asterisks on the labels for required fields (and an
> instruction line saying what the asterisk means).
>
> So fields without an asterisk can be considered optional.
>
> We also have placeholder text on the optional fields that says
> "optional". It's redundant information because the label doesn't have an
> asterisk. It kind of reinforces that the field is optional but isn't
> necessary to know it's there.
>
> Placeholder text typically fails color contrast. Would you consider
> redundant placeholder text as "incidental" with regards to the exception in
> 1.4.3?
>
> The placeholder text is not "part of an inactive user interface component"
> so that part of the incidental text definition doesn't apply.
>
> I also have a hard time applying "pure decoration" to the placeholder
> although it's close. The normative definition (
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-pure-decoration) of "pure decoration"
> is "serving only an aesthetic purpose, providing no information, and having
> no functionality". In this case, the placeholder isn't really for
> aesthetic purposes and it does provide information, albeit redundant
> information. Maybe you could interpret it as aesthetic as a bit of a
> stretch.
>
> The last part of the 1.4.3 incidental exception says "part of a picture
> that contains significant other visual content". While the placeholder
> text is not part of a picture, there is other significant visual content
> (the field label, with or without the asterisk).
>
> My preference is to have the placeholder have sufficient contrast. That's
> just a better UX. But as you know, there are some companies looking at the
> "checklist" approach to accessibility and want to (initially) fix only
> things that strictly fail WCAG. I'm sure I could argue that it does fail,
> but playing the devil's advocate, can you see a reason why it wouldn't
> fail? My only thought is how to consider it "incidental" text.
>
>

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Thu, May 12 2022 7:13PM
Subject: Re: can redundant placeholder text be considered "incidental"?
← Previous message | No next message

1. why do they need this information? If they think it's important
enough, put it in the label. Since * is the standard to mark required
fields I don't see the need for it.
2. The problem with trying to make the placeholder text pass color
contrast is that it starts to look remarkably like actual value,
meaning users could start thinking "optional" is actual user input,
one of the many reasons placeholder text is typically bad UX.
3. WCAG typically allows for browser default (e.g. the almost
invisible focus outline in some browsers), so if the placeholder text
color is a browser default that argument may apply.

And, well, honestly, whether this is a WCAG violation or not, in this
particuloar instance, is a theoretical exercise mostly, it does not
sound like it has any user impact, it certainly can be argued that
this is redundant. As a usability I'd put a recommendation to remove
it, because it doesn't serve any purpose, but if I failed it under
1.4.3 I'd do it as a minor.



On 5/12/22, glen walker < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> One other piece of information, the placeholder text is not visible by
> default. The label for the field displays "inside" the field so it looks
> like a placeholder but when the field receives focus, the label font
> shrinks a bit and moves up out of the way above the field so it's still
> visible while the user types in the field. As soon as the label moves out
> of the way, the "optional" placeholder text appears, again as redundant
> information and of course disappears when you start typing.
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 11:55 AM glen walker < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> We have a form with asterisks on the labels for required fields (and an
>> instruction line saying what the asterisk means).
>>
>> So fields without an asterisk can be considered optional.
>>
>> We also have placeholder text on the optional fields that says
>> "optional". It's redundant information because the label doesn't have an
>> asterisk. It kind of reinforces that the field is optional but isn't
>> necessary to know it's there.
>>
>> Placeholder text typically fails color contrast. Would you consider
>> redundant placeholder text as "incidental" with regards to the exception
>> in
>> 1.4.3?
>>
>> The placeholder text is not "part of an inactive user interface component"
>> so that part of the incidental text definition doesn't apply.
>>
>> I also have a hard time applying "pure decoration" to the placeholder
>> although it's close. The normative definition (
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-pure-decoration) of "pure decoration"
>> is "serving only an aesthetic purpose, providing no information, and
>> having
>> no functionality". In this case, the placeholder isn't really for
>> aesthetic purposes and it does provide information, albeit redundant
>> information. Maybe you could interpret it as aesthetic as a bit of a
>> stretch.
>>
>> The last part of the 1.4.3 incidental exception says "part of a picture
>> that contains significant other visual content". While the placeholder
>> text is not part of a picture, there is other significant visual content
>> (the field label, with or without the asterisk).
>>
>> My preference is to have the placeholder have sufficient contrast. That's
>> just a better UX. But as you know, there are some companies looking at
>> the
>> "checklist" approach to accessibility and want to (initially) fix only
>> things that strictly fail WCAG. I'm sure I could argue that it does fail,
>> but playing the devil's advocate, can you see a reason why it wouldn't
>> fail? My only thought is how to consider it "incidental" text.
>>
>>
> > > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.