Redundant Entry
Tier 1 · The normative floor
Baseline compliance
What the normative text of WCAG 2.2 requires, and nothing more. Only a failure of this tier is a WCAG failure.
The bare minimum
Information the user has already entered, or that was provided to them, and that must be entered again in the same process, is either auto-populated or available to select. Exceptions: re-entry is essential, is needed for security, or the earlier information is no longer valid.
Normative text
Verbatim from WCAG 2.2, W3C Recommendation 12 December 2024. Underlined terms are defined below.
Information previously entered by or provided to the user that is required to be entered again in the same process is either:
- auto-populated, or
- available for the user to select.
Except when:
- re-entering the information is essential,
- the information is required to ensure the security of the content, or
- previously entered information is no longer valid.
Not required by the normative text
Common claims that this criterion does not support. Don't log these as WCAG failures.
- Remembering information across separate processes or sessions.
- Auto-population. Letting the user select it, such as a "same as shipping address" checkbox, is enough.
Definitions used (2)
Glossary definitions are normative. Their notes are informative.
- process
-
series of user actions where each action is required in order to complete an activity
- essential
-
if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content, and information and functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform
Tier 2 · The gap
Usability & user impact
Where content can meet this criterion and still make things harder for people with disabilities. These are not failures of SC 3.3.7, so raise them as usability defects. Known failures, including failures of related criteria, are listed in Tier 1.
Offering the earlier value in a hard-to-find control satisfies "available to select" but still makes people re-enter data.
Tier 3 · The golden path
Recommended best practice
The pattern that meets the floor, closes the gap, and avoids audit disputes. A recommendation, not a requirement.
Pre-fill repeated information by default and let users edit it.
W3C's Understanding document and techniques for SC 3.3.7 ↗ are informative: sufficient techniques show ways to pass, and documented failures show common ways to fail, but neither changes what the criterion requires.
How SC 3.3.7 maps to the WCAG 3 draft
From this site's reviewed map to the WCAG 3 editor's draft. It's an interpretation: W3C has not published a mapping.
Successor provisions
From WCAG 2.2, section 5.1: “The main content of WCAG 2.2 is normative and defines requirements that impact conformance claims. Introductory material, appendices, sections marked as "non-normative", diagrams, examples, and notes are informative (non-normative). Non-normative material provides advisory information to help interpret the guidelines but does not create requirements that impact a conformance claim.”