W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Various updates from the ACT Task Force

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2022-05-26 to 2022-06-07.

10 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. New rule: SVG element with explicit role has non-empty accessible name
  2. New Rule: Element with presentational children has no focusable content
  3. New Rule: headers attribute specified on a cell refers to cells in the same table element
  4. Update Approved ACT Rules
  5. DONE: ACT Test Tools & Methodology Matrix
  6. DONE: Separate WCAG Rules from Other ACT Rules
  7. DONE: Update ACT Rules Common Input Aspects

1. New rule: SVG element with explicit role has non-empty accessible name

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

SVG element with explicit role 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)
I do not approve because (please comment)

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

Details

Responder New rule: SVG element with explicit role has non-empty accessible nameComments
Shawn Lawton Henry
Wilco Fiers I approve of the rule being published
Michael Gower I approve of the rule being published
Bruce Bailey I approve of the rule being published
John Foliot I approve of the rule being published
Todd Libby I approve of the rule being published
Mary Jo Mueller I approve of the rule being published
Ben Tillyer
Laura Carlson I approve of the rule being published
Gregg Vanderheiden I approve of the rule being published

2. New Rule: Element with presentational children has no focusable content

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

Element with presentational children has no focusable content

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 7
I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment)
I do not approve because (please comment)

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

Details

Responder New Rule: Element with presentational children has no focusable contentComments
Shawn Lawton Henry
Wilco Fiers I approve of the rule being published
Michael Gower
Bruce Bailey I approve of the rule being published
John Foliot I approve of the rule being published
Todd Libby I approve of the rule being published
Mary Jo Mueller I approve of the rule being published I'm sure you've had conversations on this, but I'm wondering why this rule doesn't map to 2.4.3 Focus Order. If focus goes to items that have no programmatic meaning, one could argue that this affects the aspect of the requirement, "focusable components receive focus in an order that preserves meaning and operability". Though I won't hold up publication on this note.
Ben Tillyer
Laura Carlson I approve of the rule being published
Gregg Vanderheiden I approve of the rule being published

3. New Rule: headers attribute specified on a cell refers to cells in the same table element

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

headers attribute specified on a cell refers to cells in the same table element

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) 2
I do not approve because (please comment)

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

Details

Responder New Rule: headers attribute specified on a cell refers to cells in the same table elementComments
Shawn Lawton Henry
Wilco Fiers I approve of the rule being published
Michael Gower
Bruce Bailey I approve of the rule being published
John Foliot I approve of the rule being published
Todd Libby I approve of the rule being published
Mary Jo Mueller I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment) The testcase that best matches the title of the rule isn’t covered nor discussed.

- No testcase that covers headers that reference an id within another table element.

- Inapplicable 3 is visible to a screen reader, so I question that this isn’t applicable. I would agree it’s not applicable if it were display:none or visibilty:hidden.
Ben Tillyer
Laura Carlson I approve of the rule being published
Gregg Vanderheiden I approve of the rule being published with adjustments (please comment) see MJ comments

4. Update Approved ACT Rules

ACT Task Force has reviewed and approved a number of small changes to existing rules. These include:

The ACT Task Force requests AG to publish updates to existing rules approved with the above changes.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I approve of publishing the updates 6
I approve of publishing the updates with adjustments (please comment)
I do not approve because (please comment)

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

Details

Responder Update Approved ACT RulesComments
Shawn Lawton Henry
Wilco Fiers I approve of publishing the updates
Michael Gower
Bruce Bailey I approve of publishing the updates
John Foliot I approve of publishing the updates
Todd Libby I approve of publishing the updates
Mary Jo Mueller Comments on "Programmatically Hidden":

- This sentence is difficult to understand as written. "The HTML standard suggests rendering elements with the hidden attribute with a CSS rule that applies the value none to the CSS property display of the element." Not sure what to suggest to make it better.

- Editorial: "Contrarily" should be "Contrary"
Ben Tillyer
Laura Carlson I approve of publishing the updates
Gregg Vanderheiden I approve of publishing the updates

5. DONE: ACT Test Tools & Methodology Matrix

Please review:

As described in ACT's Work statement, the ACT Task Force has been working on improve how we track which accessibility test tools and methodologies have implemented which ACT Rules. Something that is also part of the W3C-lead WAI-CooP project. This effort is a continuation of work previously done by the ACT-Rules Community Group.

The purpose of the implementation matrix is to give greater insight into which test tools and methodologies have adopted ACT Rules, and to what extend they have done so. The matrix only includes tools and methodologies that have made test results available to the ACT Task Force. We are in contact with various other organisations to get more test results. Our hope is that by publishing this list, we can encourage other tool and methodology vendors to start aligning their test solutions with ACT Rules, and so improve consistency of testing across the web accessibility industry.

The ACT Task Force would like AG's opinion on publishing these implementation pages. We are still working on some slight editorial and usability aspects, which may lead to minor changes before publication.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I approve of publishing the matrix 5
I approve of publishing the matrix with the following adjustments (please comment) 3
I do not approve because (please comment)

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

Details

Responder DONE: ACT Test Tools & Methodology MatrixComments
Shawn Lawton Henry I approve of publishing the matrix with the following adjustments (please comment) Some important edits and issues, and some minor suggestions for consideration: https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/pull/103
Wilco Fiers I approve of publishing the matrix
Michael Gower I approve of publishing the matrix with the following adjustments (please comment) Focus handling isn't controlled very well. If I execute on an example, i think it should open in a new window by default so that I can close the example window and be at my prior point of interaction. In the current implementation, keyboard users lose their point of regard when trying to return to the example list (focus is lost from list).
Bruce Bailey I approve of publishing the matrix
John Foliot I approve of publishing the matrix with the following adjustments (please comment) It would be helpful to also cross link tools to their "homes" on the web (i.e. furnish URLs to the tools/resources in question)
Todd Libby I approve of publishing the matrix
Mary Jo Mueller On the ACT Test Tools & Methodology Matrix page in the Understanding ACT Consistency section: should there be a link from the "report the outcome in a standard format" to the expected standard reporting format?
Ben Tillyer I approve of publishing the matrix
Laura Carlson I approve of publishing the matrix
Gregg Vanderheiden

6. DONE: Separate WCAG Rules from Other ACT Rules

Please review the Redesigned ACT page header, which include the following changes from the current design:

  • Updates the branding to more clearly indicate WCAG 2 Rules are a subset of ACT Rules
  • Adds a navigation bar with three links
  • Various editorial changes to distinguish between rules for WCAG 2, and ACT Rules generally
  • Split the proposed rules list in rules for WCAG 2, and other proposed rules

The ACT Task Force has a number or proposed rules that test for requirements from WAI-ARIA that are not part of WCAG 2. Because of this, we believe the existing heading of "WCAG 2 Test Rules" needs to change. We propose returning to "ACT Rules" as the overarching name of our work, and within that grouping rules based on which standard they test for (WCAG 2, WAI-ARIA, possibly more in the future.)

The ACT Task Force requests that AG publish the updated page designs. We are still working on some slight editorial and usability aspects, which may lead to minor changes before publication.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I approve of publishing the updated pages 6
I approve of publishing the updated pages with the following adjustments (please comment) 3
I do not approve because (please comment)

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

Details

Responder DONE: Separate WCAG Rules from Other ACT RulesComments
Shawn Lawton Henry I approve of publishing the updated pages with the following adjustments (please comment) Some important edits and issues, and some minor suggestions for consideration: https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/pull/103
Wilco Fiers I approve of publishing the updated pages
Michael Gower I approve of publishing the updated pages I'm not sure how easy/practical it is to distinguish between rules for a technique and rules for WCAG. I understand the concept that failing a technique rule does not mean the requirement is failed. But the opposite isn't true, right? Passing a sufficient technique should in most circumstances (unless otherwise indicated) mean a pass of WCAG for that consideration, I believe?
Bruce Bailey I approve of publishing the updated pages with the following adjustments (please comment) I agree that rules testing for implementation of WAI-ARIA that are not part of WCAG -- so the existing heading needs to change.

Making Accessibility **Conformance** Testing Rules the parent heading is good. But there is still the unresolved contradiction of framing ACT Rules addressing WAI-ARIA as **conformance** because WAI-ARIA is not a "standard" in the same way WCAG is.

I think it may be the case that ACT Rule, because they are granular, are more about validation than "conformance". ACT Rules are a valuable part of a conformance process/evaluation, but just making ACT Rules the parent heading is not the only semantic difficulty.

Current:
This page contains list of ACT Rules to test conformance Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) , WAI-ARIA and other accessibility practices. ACT Rules for WCAG 2 are formally approved by the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group.

Proposed:
This page contains list of procedures (ACT Rules) to aid with assessing conformance to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), WAI-ARIA, and other accessibility best practices. ACT Rules are formally approved by the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group.
John Foliot I approve of publishing the updated pages
Todd Libby I approve of publishing the updated pages
Mary Jo Mueller I approve of publishing the updated pages with the following adjustments (please comment) As a suggestion, deprecated rules should be listed at the bottom of the sorted list (or in a separate list). I don't know if the list of deprecated rules will grow or not but it seems odd to have them appear in the middle of the list of valid rules.
Ben Tillyer I approve of publishing the updated pages
Laura Carlson I approve of publishing the updated pages
Gregg Vanderheiden

7. DONE: Update ACT Rules Common Input Aspects

Please review the new sections 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8: ACT Common Input Aspects.

These input aspects are used in a number of proposed ACT rules, but their definitions were never formalized. The ACT Task Force requests for AG to publish the updated ACT Common Input Aspects note, with these new sections.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I approve of publishing the updated note 5
I approve of publishing the updated note with the following adjustments (please comment) 2
I do not approve because (please comment)

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

Details

Responder DONE: Update ACT Rules Common Input AspectsComments
Shawn Lawton Henry
Wilco Fiers I approve of publishing the updated note
Michael Gower I approve of publishing the updated note with the following adjustments (please comment) I wonder if there is a different word/term than "input aspects" that could be used in the document title? I read this and immediately assumed it concerned input types. Since some of the 'input' aspects as actually outputs, at the least this is very open to confusion.
Since this is really about atomic aspects, is that a better term? I'd request the group consider possible other terms to persue.
Bruce Bailey I approve of publishing the updated note
John Foliot I approve of publishing the updated note with the following adjustments (please comment) Simply as a comment/question, is it worth considering also including 'haptic output' as bullet 2.9?
Todd Libby I approve of publishing the updated note
Mary Jo Mueller I approve of publishing the updated note Editorial: In "Video Output" fix "RUle" to be "Rule".
Ben Tillyer
Laura Carlson I approve of publishing the updated note
Gregg Vanderheiden

More details on responses

  • Shawn Lawton Henry: last responded on 27, May 2022 at 02:45 (UTC)
  • Wilco Fiers: last responded on 30, May 2022 at 10:27 (UTC)
  • Michael Gower: last responded on 30, May 2022 at 20:21 (UTC)
  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 31, May 2022 at 10:46 (UTC)
  • John Foliot: last responded on 31, May 2022 at 13:53 (UTC)
  • Todd Libby: last responded on 31, May 2022 at 14:49 (UTC)
  • Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 31, May 2022 at 15:04 (UTC)
  • Ben Tillyer: last responded on 31, May 2022 at 15:14 (UTC)
  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 31, May 2022 at 15:35 (UTC)
  • Gregg Vanderheiden: last responded on 7, June 2022 at 15:13 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Chris Wilson
  2. Lisa Seeman-Horwitz
  3. Janina Sajka
  4. Katie Haritos-Shea
  5. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  6. Chus Garcia
  7. Steve Faulkner
  8. Patrick Lauke
  9. David MacDonald
  10. Gez Lemon
  11. Makoto Ueki
  12. Peter Korn
  13. Preety Kumar
  14. Georgios Grigoriadis
  15. Stefan Schnabel
  16. Romain Deltour
  17. Chris Blouch
  18. Jedi Lin
  19. Jeanne F Spellman
  20. Kimberly Patch
  21. Glenda Sims
  22. Ian Pouncey
  23. Alastair Campbell
  24. Léonie Watson
  25. David Sloan
  26. John Kirkwood
  27. Detlev Fischer
  28. Reinaldo Ferraz
  29. Matt Garrish
  30. Mike Gifford
  31. Loïc Martínez Normand
  32. Mike Pluke
  33. Justine Pascalides
  34. Chris Loiselle
  35. Tzviya Siegman
  36. Jan McSorley
  37. Sailesh Panchang
  38. Cristina Mussinelli
  39. Jonathan Avila
  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. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  57. Francis Storr
  58. Rick Johnson
  59. David Swallow
  60. Aparna Pasi
  61. Gregorio Pellegrino
  62. Melanie Philipp
  63. Jake Abma
  64. Nicole Windmann
  65. Oliver Keim
  66. Gundula Niemann
  67. Ruoxi Ran
  68. Wendy Reid
  69. Scott O'Hara
  70. Charles Adams
  71. Muhammad Saleem
  72. Amani Ali
  73. Trevor Bostic
  74. Jamie Herrera
  75. Shinya Takami
  76. Karen Herr
  77. Kathy Eng
  78. Cybele Sack
  79. Audrey Maniez
  80. Jennifer Delisi
  81. Arthur Soroken
  82. Daniel Bjorge
  83. Kai Recke
  84. David Fazio
  85. Daniel Montalvo
  86. Mario Chacón-Rivas
  87. Michael Gilbert
  88. Caryn Pagel
  89. Achraf Othman
  90. Fernanda Bonnin
  91. Jared Batterman
  92. Raja Kushalnagar
  93. Jan Williams
  94. Isabel Holdsworth
  95. Julia Chen
  96. Marcos Franco Murillo
  97. Yutaka Suzuki
  98. Azlan Cuttilan
  99. Jennifer Strickland
  100. Joe Humbert
  101. Charu Pandhi
  102. Poornima Badhan Subramanian
  103. Alain Vagner
  104. Roberto Scano
  105. Rain Breaw Michaels
  106. Kun Zhang
  107. Jaunita George
  108. Regina Sanchez
  109. Shawn Thompson
  110. Thomas Brunet
  111. Kenny Dunsin
  112. Jen Goulden
  113. Mike Beganyi
  114. Ronny Hendriks
  115. Breixo Pastoriza Barcia
  116. Olivia Hogan-Stark
  117. Rashmi Katakwar
  118. Julie Rawe
  119. Duff Johnson
  120. Laura Miller
  121. Will Creedle
  122. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  123. Marie Csanady
  124. Meenakshi Das
  125. Perrin Anto
  126. Stephanie Louraine
  127. Rachele DiTullio
  128. Jan Jaap de Groot
  129. Rebecca Monteleone
  130. Ian Kersey
  131. Peter Bossley
  132. Anastasia Lanz
  133. Michael Keane
  134. Chiara De Martin
  135. Giacomo Petri
  136. Andrew Barakat
  137. Devanshu Chandra
  138. Xiao (Helen) Zhou
  139. Bryan Trogdon
  140. Mary Ann (MJ) Jawili
  141. 禹佳 陶
  142. 锦澄 王
  143. Stephen James
  144. Jay Mullen
  145. Thorsten Katzmann
  146. Tony Holland
  147. Kent Boucher
  148. Abbey Davis
  149. Phil Day
  150. Julia Kim
  151. Michelle Lana
  152. David Williams
  153. Mikayla Thompson
  154. Catherine Droege
  155. James Edwards
  156. Eric Hind
  157. Quintin Balsdon
  158. Mario Batušić
  159. David Cox
  160. Sazzad Mahamud
  161. Katy Brickley
  162. Kimberly Sarabia
  163. Corey Hinshaw
  164. Ashley Firth
  165. Daniel Harper-Wain
  166. Kiara Stewart
  167. DJ Chase
  168. Suji Sreerama
  169. Lori Oakley
  170. David Middleton
  171. Alyssa Priddy
  172. Young Choi
  173. Nichole Bui
  174. Julie Romanowski
  175. Eloisa Guerrero
  176. Daniel Henderson-Ede
  177. George Kuan
  178. YAPING LIN
  179. Justin Wilson
  180. Tiffany Burtin
  181. Shane Dittmar
  182. Nayan Padrai
  183. Niamh Kelly
  184. Matt Argomaniz Matthew Argomaniz
  185. Frankie Wolf
  186. Kimberly McGee
  187. Ahson Rana
  188. Carolina Crespo
  189. humor927 humor927
  190. Samantha McDaniel
  191. Matthäus Rojek
  192. Phong Tony Le
  193. Bram Janssens
  194. Graham Ritchie
  195. Aleksandar Cindrikj
  196. Jeroen Hulscher
  197. Alina Vayntrub
  198. Marco Sabidussi
  199. John Toles
  200. Jeanne Erickson Cooley
  201. Theo Hale
  202. Gert-Jan Vercauteren
  203. Karla Rubiano
  204. Aashutosh K
  205. Hidde de Vries
  206. Julian Kittelson-Aldred
  207. Roland Buss
  208. Aditya Surendranath
  209. Avon Kuo
  210. Elizabeth Patrick
  211. Nat Tarnoff
  212. Filippo Zorzi
  213. Mike Pedersen
  214. 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.