Include H90 as a technique for 1.3.1 Info and Relationships

[mbgower]

H90: Indicating required form controls using label or legend is properly associated with Success Criterion 3.3.2 (Labels or Instructions); however it should also be included in Situation A of 1.3.1 Info and Relationships, item number 10 "Making information and relationships conveyed through presentation programmatically determinable using the following techniques:" All examples in H90 involve putting the indicator of a required field inside these HTML elements, label and legend, to ensure there is a programmatic equivalent to the visual positioning of the indicator, and so are clearly associated with 1.3.1

[joshueoconnor]

I wonder if this is the case because H90 is already covered by 3.3.2 - there is no burning need for it to be covered by 1.3.1 - which is already overloaded as it is IMO.

[mraccess77]

Keep as is.

[DavidMacDonald]

keep as is...

[awkawk]

When we last discussed this (not resolved at that time: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/issues/15) the point was made that H44 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H44.html) suggests using label and you meet 3.3.2 and 1.3.1 at the same time.

Do we feel that programmatic indication of required state is not required by 1.3.1 or that this technique doesn't meet the requirement?

[mraccess77]

If the required state is indicated visually then it is covered under SC 1.3.1. But if the required state is not indicated visually then it doesn't seem to fall under a requirement of the current SCs.

[mbgower]

I have encountered numerous situations where applications use an asterisk or other symbol to indicate a required field, but the symbol has been located outside the label tag, thereby rendering it not programmatically determinable. The point of including H90 in 1.3.1 is that it specifies the need to ensure any indicator is properly inside the label, thus associating it with the input.
Given some of the other issues, I would rate this as a relatively low priority. But an asterisk outside the label field is a frequent occurrence and rightly fails 1.3.1, not 3.3.2.

[awkawk]

@mraccess77 The test procedure for H90 indicates that the required status must be indicated in the label or legend. To meet 3.3.2 this would need to be visually provided, so it seems that if you meet 3.3.2 using this technique that you also meet 1.3.1. Maybe to make a 1.3.1 claim we would need the procedure to be more definitive in the way that H44 is?

[mraccess77]

I agree if there is a visual representation of required then it would need to be associated some how and this is one way of doing that to meet SC 1.3.1.

[fstrr]

Closing this as inactive. It also seems to be covered by Label In Name and there's a related issue (#2277) on this. If this is still relevant, please re-open or add into the related issue's discussion.