Error Prevention

Current:

Proposed:

Suggestion for Priority Level

What Principle and Guideline the SC falls within.

Principle 3, Guideline 3.3 - Update to SC 3.3.4

Description

The intent of this Success Criterion is to give users with cognitive disabilities mechanisms for avoiding serious consequences that are the result of a mistake made when performing an action that they are unable to reverse or finding tasks too difficult to be managed correctly.

Benefits

People with cognitive impairments make many more mistakes in filling out forms than the general population. When mistakes cannot be easily corrected they can not complete the task.

For example, a user with a memory impairment may not remember that they have already added an item to their shopping cart and may add the item a second time within the same online session. They may confused the dates when booking a trip, or made numerous other mistakes. It is essential that people with cognitive impairments have the opportunity to check their work AND can fix their mistakes easily.

For people with cognitive disabilities, a process being theoretically reversible is not enough. Typically the process of reversing a transaction is too complex for them to manage without help. They may not have access to that help meaning they have to live with all the mistakes they have made. For example, when inputting credit card information incorrectly these mistakes can be devastating.

In addition if the process of correcting mistakes is too difficult, users may give up, either losing the transaction or buying unwanted items because of the one required item.

The effect of this happening multiple times is devastating and can result in a large number of users with disabilities avoiding using the Internet for many tasks.

The presence of a simple mechanism for modifying the number of items in the shopping cart at various times in the checkout process can significantly reduce the chances of an unwanted purchase by giving the user the ability to change the quantity associated with a product. In the same scenario, a summary of the order, including product quantities and associated costs, along with a notification prior to final order submission, gives the user the chance to identify any errors and confirm the choices made or make changes to the order.

In the example given, a summary of the purchase would show both the error in quantity as well as a higher then expected order total. (See Working Group Notes). In some cases a user may realize that a mistake has been made after the final submission of data.

Implementing timeframes for canceling transactions which are programmatic determined helps the user understanding the amount of time the user has to cancel a transaction and makes them less susceptible to scams.

Users with cognitive disabilities can make errors for a variety of reasons including problems with language, memory related disabilities, focus and attention related disabilities and attention with details. Because errors may occur without being noticed at any point in a process containing multiple steps, this Success Criterion helps users review and make corrections to input prior to final submission.

For example, a user with ADHD purchasing a travel ticket on a website may have poor attention to detail, low attention span and may be easily discouraged. As the user goes through the order completion flow, manual errors such as an incorrect billing address are not captured until all of the information is submitted. The successful completion of the order relies on the information provided at multiple steps in the process. While there may be significant error controls, for instance format correction and default values for the travel departure and arrival dates, if the manually inputted details are incorrect, the payment will not be processed correctly. An error due to lack of accuracy or attention to detail such as an incorrect street number or zip code in the billing address will result in a declined payment. If a summary is not provided before submitting the final order or the ability to go back in the process to make correction is not provided or is not clear the user may not understand the reason for the declined payment and abandon the order.

Related Resources

Resources are for information purposes only. No endorsement is intended or implied.

• User needs - Table 3
• Background research document
• Semantics for adaptive interfaces

issue papers

• Online Payments
  
• Numbers and Math

Testability

If the website causes legal commitments or financial transactions for the user to occur, that modify or delete user-controllable data in data storage systems, or that submit user test responses, confirm that:

1. A sufficient technique is used for Checked, Confirmed and Modify or
2. The submission can be Checked, Confirmed and Modify: via clearly labeled actions and get back to the place they were at, in one clearly labeled action without unwanted loss of data. AND

AND

1. A sufficient technique is used for timeframes which are programmiticaly determined

    

    

Techniques

Sufficient technique for Checked, Confirmed and Modify

• Provide a summary before submitting important information. Make it clearly labelled to repair information and one click to return to the summary
• Provide clickable breadcrumbs that allow users to see the previous steps, go back, and change them.

From WCAG

• 3.3.6 Error Prevention (All): For Web pages that require the user to submit information, ALL of the following is true: ( Change is needed to conform to change)

Sufficient technique for timeframes

1. Using semantics for identifying timeframes (uses new semantics)
2. Using RDFA for identifying timeframes (more difficult bu now supported)

Working groups notes

Thad - The SC requires pre-confirmation but what about post confirmation for example an email confirmation with the potential to modify or cancel a transaction within a given amount of time