Using an asterisk to visually identify required fields - falls through the cracks with latest updates to 3.3.2 and 2.4.6 #4791
Description
In 2024 SC 2.4.6 took over some heavy lifting regarding the descriptiveness of form field labels and the understanding documents have made the distinction pretty clear. The techniques mentioned don't seem to reflect that change as much, however.
The techniques mentioned in 3.3.2 and 2.4.6 both include G131, however, for 3.3.2 it's G131 AND (insert possible technique), for 2.4.6 G131 is deemed enough on it's own.
The example issue I now run into is that, regarding required fields that are visually labeled** with an asterisk:
- For 3.3.2 in it's former state (where we would check if labels were present ánd descriptive,) using H90 or G83 would either provide a description of the asterisk ('If a symbol is used, the user is advised of its meaning before the first use.'), or required fields would be identified with an error message (bad UI, but at least identified - or failed under 3.3.3).
- For 2.4.6, where we currently check if labels (if present) are descriptive (while 3.3.2 now only requires labels are present), since G131 is deemed sufficient on it's own, there's no more mention of required fields.
I can still argue my case that an unexplained asterisk isn't descriptive enough, but I could really use some 'on paper back-up'.
I understand the issue of linking H90 as is under 2.4.6, since it's an HTML technique and not a general technique. But maybe an update to G131 can be made, expanding on example 3 with something like:
Example 3: A form with required fields
A purchasing form includes several fields that are required. In addition to identifying the field, the label for each required field includes the word “required" in parentheses. Alternatively, if a symbol is used to identify required fields the user is advised of its meaning before the first use.
** My point isn't that an asterisk cannot be used, just that if they áre used, it is also mandatory that the meaning needs to be explained (and not júst programmatically to AT users with required) . I also don't mean to argue it should be mandatory that required fields need to be labeled as such to pass WCAG. Just focusing on the * right now :)