W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT Rules Update and Notes

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2021-11-10 to 2021-12-07.

13 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Form field has non-empty accessible name
  2. Attribute has valid value
  3. Element marked as decorative is not exposed
  4. Letter spacing in style attributes is not important
  5. Word spacing in style attributes is not important
  6. Done: Common Input Aspects note
  7. Done: Element with lang attribute has valid language tag

1. Form field has non-empty accessible name

The ACT Task Force would like to publish the following rule:

Form field has non-empty accessible name

Do you agree with the proposal from the ACT Task Force to publish this rule?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I approve of the rule being published 8
I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment) 2
I do not approve because (please comment) 1

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Form field has non-empty accessible nameComments
John Foliot I approve of the rule being published
Laura Carlson I approve of the rule being published
Gregg Vanderheiden
Rachael Bradley Montgomery I approve of the rule being published
Oliver Keim I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment) The section "Inapplicable" contains some temporarily hidden elements which validate OK, although they fail when the elements reach a visible state. Many web pages dynamically show controls depending on user interaction. For such cases the web page would validate OK, but fail at the time the "inapplicable" element gets a visible state.
Gundula Niemann I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment) no backdoors
rules should be as simple as possible to avoid human errors and blown-up automated tests.
So, the result on checking one attribute should not rely on the value for another attribute, like being disabled or hidden. This might change any time.
Wilco Fiers I approve of the rule being published @Mike: 1. Test cases aren't exhaustive. If you feel a test case showing the title attribute is important, we can certainly add one. 2. I'm not sure why two controls having the same name would be a failure. Even if it was, that seems like it should be its own rule.

@Oliver / @ Gundula; I don't think those examples fail WCAG. Even if you're right that when the state changes they do (which we don't know), failing them in a rule, when they don't fail WCAG itself doesn't seem appropriate. It isn't allowed by the ACT rules format either.

Jeanne F Spellman I approve of the rule being published
Jaunita George I approve of the rule being published
Bruce Bailey I approve of the rule being published
Michael Gower I do not approve because (please comment) 1) There is a note about the use of title with some ATs in the preamble, but there is neither a pass or fail example using title, despite it being an acceptable part of the computation. I'd like to understand this.
2) maybe there should be a fail scenario (where 2 items have the same name). If there was no aria labelling (or describing) happening, then it would be an inapplicable example. I'm scanning this quickly, so apologize if I've missed a nuance.

Andrew Kirkpatrick I approve of the rule being published
Jonathan Avila

2. Attribute has valid value

autocomplete attribute has valid value

Do you agree with the proposal from the ACT Task Force to publish this rule?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I approve of the rule being published 8
I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment) 3
I do not approve because (please comment) 1

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Attribute has valid valueComments
John Foliot I approve of the rule being published
Laura Carlson I approve of the rule being published
Gregg Vanderheiden
Rachael Bradley Montgomery I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment) Under applicability, stating that this rule does not apply when a automcomplete tag is needed but no attribute is present would make this easier to understand on first reading. That said, I will not object to the current langauge.
Oliver Keim I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment) Disabled elements are treated as inapplicable, however, if the element becomes visible these samples would fail.
Gundula Niemann I do not approve because (please comment) in fact, no answer (technical issue with the questionnaire)
Wilco Fiers I approve of the rule being published @Rachael: See Q2 response.
Jeanne F Spellman I approve of the rule being published
Jaunita George I approve of the rule being published
Bruce Bailey I approve of the rule being published
Michael Gower I approve of the rule being published
Andrew Kirkpatrick I approve of the rule being published
Jonathan Avila I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment) Whether the value is accurate or not is not a hard fail of WCAG as if the field is not listed then it doesn't matter if it has invalid autocomplete.

3. Element marked as decorative is not exposed

The ACT Task Force would like to publish the following rule:

Element marked as decorative is not exposed

Do you agree with the proposal from the ACT Task Force to publish this rule?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I approve of the rule being published 6
I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment) 3
I do not approve because (please comment)

(4 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Element marked as decorative is not exposedComments
John Foliot I approve of the rule being published
Laura Carlson I approve of the rule being published
Gregg Vanderheiden
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Oliver Keim I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment) samples with role=presentation are missing.
Gundula Niemann
Wilco Fiers I approve of the rule being published @mike, Agreed, passed 4 might be better as the first example. Will put in a fix

Regarding alt=""; An image with a completely empty alt is given the implicit role of presentation, see https://www.w3.org/TR/html-aria/#el-img-empty-alt

@Oliver; These test cases aren't exhaustive. Still, wouldn't be difficult to swap some of the none's. I'll put in a fix.
Jeanne F Spellman I approve of the rule being published
Jaunita George I approve of the rule being published
Bruce Bailey I approve of the rule being published
Michael Gower I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment) Shouldn't pass example 4 be the first example (image with an empty alt). It is the most common occurrence. If the rules are not constructed to be most common first, ignore my comment.

As someone weak in this space, I wanted a bit more information on how an image with alt="" is treated in the tree. I couldn't see much .
Andrew Kirkpatrick I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment) Not sure if possible to fail this, maybe I'm misunderstanding
Jonathan Avila

4. Letter spacing in style attributes is not important

The ACT Task Force would like to publish the following rule:

Letter spacing in style attributes is not !important

Do you agree with the proposal from the ACT Task Force to publish this rule?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I approve of the rule being published 6
I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment)
I do not approve because (please comment)

(7 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Letter spacing in style attributes is not importantComments
John Foliot I approve of the rule being published
Laura Carlson I approve of the rule being published
Gregg Vanderheiden
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Oliver Keim
Gundula Niemann
Wilco Fiers
Jeanne F Spellman I approve of the rule being published
Jaunita George I approve of the rule being published
Bruce Bailey I approve of the rule being published
Michael Gower I approve of the rule being published
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Jonathan Avila

5. Word spacing in style attributes is not important

The ACT Task Force would like to publish the following rule:

Word spacing in style attributes is not !important

Do you agree with the proposal from the ACT Task Force to publish this rule?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I approve of the rule being published 6
I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment)
I do not approve because (please comment)

(7 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Word spacing in style attributes is not importantComments
John Foliot I approve of the rule being published
Laura Carlson I approve of the rule being published
Gregg Vanderheiden
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Oliver Keim
Gundula Niemann
Wilco Fiers
Jeanne F Spellman I approve of the rule being published
Jaunita George I approve of the rule being published
Bruce Bailey I approve of the rule being published
Michael Gower I approve of the rule being published
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Jonathan Avila

6. Done: Common Input Aspects note

The ACT Task Force would like to publish an update to the Common Input Aspects note. The change takes content that was previously part of multiple rules and moves it into a shared place. The update includes the following two changes:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I approve of the updated Common Input Aspects note being published 5
I approve of the updated Common Input Aspects note being published with adjustments (please comment) 1
I do not approve because (please comment)

(7 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Done: Common Input Aspects noteComments
John Foliot I approve of the updated Common Input Aspects note being published
Laura Carlson I approve of the updated Common Input Aspects note being published
Gregg Vanderheiden I approve of the updated Common Input Aspects note being published
Rachael Bradley Montgomery I approve of the updated Common Input Aspects note being published with adjustments (please comment) The custom CSS portion is defined in the negative rather than the positive. Using the positive first would, I believe, make it clearer. Something like:

The test cases of ACT Rules interested in the CSS styling must be viewed using the default stylesheet provided by the author. [User style sheets](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-cascade/#cascade-origin-user) and changes to the [user agent default style sheet](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-cascade/#cascade-origin-ua) cannot be applied for a valid test case.

That said, I will not object to the current langauge.
Oliver Keim
Gundula Niemann
Wilco Fiers Alternative suggestion for Rachael:

The test cases of ACT Rules interested in the CSS styling must be viewed with the CSS included by the author, and the [user agent default style sheet](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-cascade/#cascade-origin-ua). [User style sheets](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-cascade/#cascade-origin-user) and other custom styles should be avoided to ensure test cases have the expected outcome.
Jeanne F Spellman I approve of the updated Common Input Aspects note being published
Jaunita George I approve of the updated Common Input Aspects note being published
Bruce Bailey
Michael Gower
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Jonathan Avila

7. Done: Element with lang attribute has valid language tag

The ACT Task Force would like to publish the following rule:

Element with lang attribute has valid language tag

Do you agree with the proposal from the ACT Task Force to publish this rule?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I approve of the rule being published 5
I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment) 4
I do not approve because (please comment)

(4 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Done: Element with lang attribute has valid language tagComments
John Foliot I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment) I would prefer to see "Valid" more explicitly defined (as being iso 639.1): "Element with lang attribute has valid ISO 639-1 language <strike>tag</strike><ins>value</ins>"

Currently 'Valid' is only inferred due to the current rule language defining *invalid* values:

"Assumption: This rule assumes that only [valid language tags][valid language tag] are enough to satisfy [Success Criterion 3.1.2 Language of Parts][sc312]; this notably excludes grandfathered tags and [ISO 639.2][] three-letters codes, both having poor support in assistive technologies."
Laura Carlson I approve of the rule being published
Gregg Vanderheiden
Rachael Bradley Montgomery I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment) Typo only: Inapplicable example 1 has an extra " at the end.

Under applicability, stating that this rule does not apply when a language tag is needed but no lang attribute is present would make this easier to understand on first reading. That said, I will not object to the current langauge.
Oliver Keim I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment) value validation may include syntax and semantics. If semantics are checked a reference to the list of values which validate OK may be helpful.
Passed Example 4: Although OK for this case, another page may indeed have some text in the <article> tag, so it would be tested OK but fail in other instances of the this page, eg. if the page shows database content. May this sample better fail?
Gundula Niemann I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment) It should be explained, what a valid language tag is.
It should also be clarified, whether syntactical or also semantical correctness is tested.
Also, I consider some examples as problematic, like a success for language="invalid". A test usually is static, so it doesn't make sense to depend on whether further text is contained.
Note that two-letter codes (even with added country code) are not sufficient, see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_ISO-639-2-Codes
Wilco Fiers I approve of the rule being published There was a markdown issue, which caused some of the links not to show up. I fixed it today. That should address John concern of not having a link to a definition of "valid".

@Rachael: I've created a PR to fix the typo. Regarding applicability; we've been down that road, and got called back from it by AG, who said we were not doing this consistently. There's an almost endless list of things that are inapplicable. We never figured out a good way to decide what to mention, and what not to. Our experience has been that once you do one, you get more and more and more and more notes, until the rule is mostly notes. It wasn't working, so we stopped doing this.

@Oliver: The point of this is to push the boundaries of what is, and what isn't allowed. If a setup like this causes no problems, it's not a failure. Even if it causes issues in other pages. It's those other pages that need to be failed, not this one.

@Gundula: I'm not sure what you mean with "two-letter codes are not sufficient". Please elaborate.
Jeanne F Spellman I approve of the rule being published
Jaunita George I approve of the rule being published
Bruce Bailey
Michael Gower I approve of the rule being published
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Jonathan Avila

More details on responses

  • John Foliot: last responded on 11, November 2021 at 21:28 (UTC)
  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 12, November 2021 at 13:58 (UTC)
  • Gregg Vanderheiden: last responded on 16, November 2021 at 14:44 (UTC)
  • Rachael Bradley Montgomery: last responded on 16, November 2021 at 14:55 (UTC)
  • Oliver Keim: last responded on 22, November 2021 at 13:59 (UTC)
  • Gundula Niemann: last responded on 22, November 2021 at 14:01 (UTC)
  • Wilco Fiers: last responded on 23, November 2021 at 12:36 (UTC)
  • Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 23, November 2021 at 13:58 (UTC)
  • Jaunita George: last responded on 2, December 2021 at 23:52 (UTC)
  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 7, December 2021 at 15:27 (UTC)
  • Michael Gower: last responded on 7, December 2021 at 15:47 (UTC)
  • Andrew Kirkpatrick: last responded on 7, December 2021 at 17:21 (UTC)
  • Jonathan Avila: last responded on 7, December 2021 at 17:26 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Chris Wilson
  2. Lisa Seeman-Horwitz
  3. Janina Sajka
  4. Shawn Lawton Henry
  5. Katie Haritos-Shea
  6. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  7. Chus Garcia
  8. Steve Faulkner
  9. Patrick Lauke
  10. David MacDonald
  11. Gez Lemon
  12. Makoto Ueki
  13. Peter Korn
  14. Preety Kumar
  15. Georgios Grigoriadis
  16. Stefan Schnabel
  17. Romain Deltour
  18. Chris Blouch
  19. Jedi Lin
  20. Kimberly Patch
  21. Glenda Sims
  22. Ian Pouncey
  23. Alastair Campbell
  24. Léonie Watson
  25. David Sloan
  26. Mary Jo Mueller
  27. John Kirkwood
  28. Detlev Fischer
  29. Reinaldo Ferraz
  30. Matt Garrish
  31. Mike Gifford
  32. Loïc Martínez Normand
  33. Mike Pluke
  34. Justine Pascalides
  35. Chris Loiselle
  36. Tzviya Siegman
  37. Jan McSorley
  38. Sailesh Panchang
  39. Cristina Mussinelli
  40. John Rochford
  41. Sarah Horton
  42. Sujasree Kurapati
  43. Jatin Vaishnav
  44. Sam Ogami
  45. Kevin White
  46. E.A. Draffan
  47. Paul Bohman
  48. JaEun Jemma Ku
  49. 骅 杨
  50. Victoria Clark
  51. Avneesh Singh
  52. Mitchell Evan
  53. biao liu
  54. Scott McCormack
  55. Denis Boudreau
  56. Francis Storr
  57. Rick Johnson
  58. David Swallow
  59. Aparna Pasi
  60. Gregorio Pellegrino
  61. Melanie Philipp
  62. Jake Abma
  63. Nicole Windmann
  64. Ruoxi Ran
  65. Wendy Reid
  66. Scott O'Hara
  67. Charles Adams
  68. Muhammad Saleem
  69. Amani Ali
  70. Trevor Bostic
  71. Jamie Herrera
  72. Shinya Takami
  73. Karen Herr
  74. Kathy Eng
  75. Cybele Sack
  76. Audrey Maniez
  77. Jennifer Delisi
  78. Arthur Soroken
  79. Daniel Bjorge
  80. Kai Recke
  81. David Fazio
  82. Daniel Montalvo
  83. Mario Chacón-Rivas
  84. Michael Gilbert
  85. Caryn Pagel
  86. Achraf Othman
  87. Fernanda Bonnin
  88. Jared Batterman
  89. Raja Kushalnagar
  90. Jan Williams
  91. Todd Libby
  92. Isabel Holdsworth
  93. Julia Chen
  94. Marcos Franco Murillo
  95. Yutaka Suzuki
  96. Azlan Cuttilan
  97. Jennifer Strickland
  98. Joe Humbert
  99. Ben Tillyer
  100. Charu Pandhi
  101. Poornima Badhan Subramanian
  102. Alain Vagner
  103. Roberto Scano
  104. Rain Breaw Michaels
  105. Kun Zhang
  106. Regina Sanchez
  107. Shawn Thompson
  108. Thomas Brunet
  109. Kenny Dunsin
  110. Jen Goulden
  111. Mike Beganyi
  112. Ronny Hendriks
  113. Breixo Pastoriza Barcia
  114. Olivia Hogan-Stark
  115. Rashmi Katakwar
  116. Julie Rawe
  117. Duff Johnson
  118. Laura Miller
  119. Will Creedle
  120. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  121. Marie Csanady
  122. Meenakshi Das
  123. Perrin Anto
  124. Stephanie Louraine
  125. Rachele DiTullio
  126. Jan Jaap de Groot
  127. Rebecca Monteleone
  128. Ian Kersey
  129. Peter Bossley
  130. Anastasia Lanz
  131. Michael Keane
  132. Chiara De Martin
  133. Giacomo Petri
  134. Andrew Barakat
  135. Devanshu Chandra
  136. Helen Zhou
  137. Bryan Trogdon
  138. Mary Ann (MJ) Jawili
  139. 禹佳 陶
  140. 锦澄 王
  141. Stephen James
  142. Jay Mullen
  143. Thorsten Katzmann
  144. Tony Holland
  145. Kent Boucher
  146. Abbey Davis
  147. Phil Day
  148. Julia Kim
  149. Michelle Lana
  150. David Williams
  151. Mikayla Thompson
  152. Catherine Droege
  153. James Edwards
  154. Eric Hind
  155. Quintin Balsdon
  156. Mario Batušić
  157. David Cox
  158. Sazzad Mahamud
  159. Katy Brickley
  160. Kimberly Sarabia
  161. Corey Hinshaw
  162. Ashley Firth
  163. Daniel Harper-Wain
  164. Kiara Stewart
  165. DJ Chase
  166. Suji Sreerama
  167. Lori Oakley
  168. David Middleton
  169. Alyssa Priddy
  170. Young Choi
  171. Nichole Bui
  172. Julie Romanowski
  173. Eloisa Guerrero
  174. Daniel Henderson-Ede
  175. George Kuan
  176. YAPING LIN
  177. Justin Wilson
  178. Tiffany Burtin
  179. Shane Dittmar
  180. Nayan Padrai
  181. Niamh Kelly
  182. Matt Argomaniz Matthew Argomaniz
  183. Frankie Wolf
  184. Kimberly McGee
  185. Ahson Rana
  186. Carolina Crespo
  187. humor927 humor927
  188. Samantha McDaniel
  189. Matthäus Rojek
  190. Phong Tony Le
  191. Bram Janssens
  192. Graham Ritchie
  193. Aleksandar Cindrikj
  194. Jeroen Hulscher
  195. Alina Vayntrub
  196. Marco Sabidussi
  197. John Toles
  198. Jeanne Erickson Cooley
  199. Theo Hale
  200. Gert-Jan Vercauteren
  201. Karla Rubiano
  202. Aashutosh K
  203. Hidde de Vries
  204. Julian Kittelson-Aldred
  205. Roland Buss
  206. Aditya Surendranath
  207. Avon Kuo
  208. Elizabeth Patrick
  209. Nat Tarnoff
  210. Filippo Zorzi
  211. Mike Pedersen
  212. Rachael Yomtoob

Send an email to all the non-responders.

Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders

WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire

Report issues on GitHub project w3c/wbs-design or by mail to sysreq.