W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire WCAG2ICT-Review of SC 2.5.3 readiness to incorporate into editors draft

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: maryjom@us.ibm.com

This questionnaire was open from 2023-02-11 to 2023-02-23.

8 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Review of proposal for Success Criterion 2.5.3 Label in Name

1. Review of proposal for Success Criterion 2.5.3 Label in Name

Review the draft proposal for the section Additional Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 2.5.3 to Non-Web Documents and Software and indicate if you agree with the proposal. Note any suggested edits for improvement and/or reasoning in the comments field.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
The proposal can be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT editor's draft as-is.	2
The proposal can be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT editor' draft with some changes.	5
The proposal isn't ready to incorporate yet.	1

Details

Responder	Review of proposal for Success Criterion 2.5.3 Label in Name	Comments
Mitchell Evan	The proposal can be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT editor' draft with some changes.	(1) The note about accessible name is useful, but I wouldn't put it under the SC. Instead merge it into the existing draft note under the "name" definition. Proposed merged note: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/99#issuecomment-1438082415 (2) I agree with Mary Jo's additions for closed functionality. https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/99#issuecomment-1423307641
Chris Loiselle	The proposal can be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT editor' draft with some changes.	Reading through the draft proposal, I'd agree with the comments Mitchell has raised.
Loïc Martínez Normand	The proposal can be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT editor' draft with some changes.	I agree with the proposal by Mitchel Evan (https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/99#issuecomment-1438082415): 1. Don't have a note in 2.5.3, but have it in the definition of "name" 2.Replacing the current note in "name" by his proposal With these changes I agree to incorporate 2.5.3 into editor's draft.
Mary Jo Mueller	The proposal can be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT editor' draft with some changes.	I incorporated everyone's comments so far (as of 22 Feb, 11:30 Eastern) into a comment in the issue. See https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/99#issuecomment-1440358596. Hopefully this makes it easier for the remaining TF participants to review. I'm not sure we need to go as far as naming what the property is in different technologies. May make this brittle over time as tech changes. I think that's why the old WCAG2ICT just gave a generic property name and said "(or whatever it's called in different APIs)". That still holds true. The name is computed by the accessibility layer of the platform software using whatever supported accessibility API name properties that are set by the non-web document, user agent, or non-web software. Do we need to say that? Maybe. It's pretty complicated to fully explain. IMO, this should talk about how this applies to non-web documents and software. One thing I wanted to mention. Since we don't have any word substitutions, the document doesn't repeat the WCAG criteria (which gives the opportunity to add in the link to the WCAG2ICT interpretation for "name"). This means the note regarding accessibility APIs may not be so obvious to find - nothing would link to it. This situation isn't new. The 2013 WCAG2ICT Note also had instances where interpretations of glossary terms were provided but not linked to from the SCs that had no additional guidance to give.
Bruce Bailey	The proposal can be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT editor's draft as-is.	I concur with edits in this survey, those already incorporated, and editorials during the call.
Olivia Hogan-Stark	The proposal isn't ready to incorporate yet.
Mike Pluke	The proposal can be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT editor' draft with some changes.	I agree that the proposal can be incorporated with Mitchell's suggestions and also agreeing that this SC should be added to the closed functionality list.
Phil Day	The proposal can be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT editor's draft as-is.