Update error-identification.html #4431
Open
+18
−1
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
✅ Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Addition of a section on native HTML error validation, addressing to some extent the issues #961 and #1773 and maybe other issues.
This is mainly to start / a first stab at updating this dated understanding text. Currently there are a couple of notes strewn in, one on rectification on user input, and another note saying that there can be different techniques to display the error in text, including rather dated techniques like Javascript alerts.
The pertinent question whether (and under what conditions) native HTML form validation can be deemed sufficient to meet 3.3.1 is not touched upon in the current understanding text. While it will be difficult to draw a definite line like "on forms with three fields or less native HTML validation can be considered sufficient", it seem necessary to address the disadvantages and maybe also the benefits of native HTML validation.
Other issues that remain to be worked into a revision are, for example, correcting the inclusion of ARIA Techniques as "sufficient" as noted in #4029 and perhaps in general, and possibly adding advice regarding the combination of available techniques (e.g., to warn against overdoing it with programmatic linking of inline error messages plus aria-live regions).