Required and optional user inputs, and legends as instructions

[mbgower]

In a recent PR for , as well as recent issues concerning the wording of the normative language for Labels or Instructions, questions have been raised about what is a sufficient/necessary use of legends to indicate required or optional user inputs.

This discussion will explore this notion, both in regard to WCAG 2 existing guidance and potential future 3.0 considerations.

#3553
#1792 (comment)

[bruce-usab]

@mraccess77 wrote:

The proposed response that required fields don't need to be indicated seems to contradict previous advice from this group that fields which contain both optional and required fields would need to indicate either required or optional fields and not rely on form submission to provide that feedback unless they were something like a username/password field.

But where is the normative SC text? It could not be requirement in all instances, since a field being required might not be determinable until the form is submitted. Username / password gets an exception just because it is common, but that is not part of the SC text either.

[mraccess77]

While I don't think it is always required - the group has previously discussed situations where indicating required fields could be considered required. For example, when the require state is known and where there are both required and optional fields. There has been numerous discussion on this and whether explanation of asterisks is required and I believe when consensus is reached we need to very clearly document what is and is not required as there is not consistency between those reporting findings on this topic before form validation.

[bruce-usab]

While I don't think it is always required...

I am of the opinion that detlev's proposed response well addresses the nuance.

[mbgower]

Note that an official working group response was published, closing #3553