w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: 'audio' or 'video' avoids automatically playing audio
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email addresses: team-wcag-act-surveys@w3.org,maryjom@us.ibm.com,wilco.fiers@deque.com
This questionnaire was open from 2020-05-14 to 2020-05-28.
5 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Instructions
- Consistency with ACT Rules Format
- Rule assumptions
- Implementation data
- Consistent with WCAG
- Remaining open issues
- Other questions or concerns
- Readiness for publishing
1. Instructions
Review the rule 'audio' or 'video' avoids automatically playing audio and answer the questions in this survey.
If there are issues with the rule, you may either open an issue in GitHub or provide details in the entry fields for the applicable question.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results |
Details
| Responder | Instructions |
|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | |
| Kathy Eng | |
| Trevor Bostic | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð |
2. Consistency with ACT Rules Format
Does the rule follow the ACT Rules Format 1.0?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes | 2 |
| No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | 2 |
| I don't know. My questions are documented below. | 1 |
Details
| Responder | Consistency with ACT Rules Format | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | There are a few issues in the applicability: - "paused and muted attributes" is ambiguous; This seems to refer to an IDL attribute, but could also mean a content attribute. This normally doesn't matter, but because of the default, it does here. Especially because "paused" is an IDL attribute but not a content attribute. - "references content" is ambiguous; how does the src attribute and the source element reference content? - The "mechanism" atomic rule uses the WCAG definition of "mechanism". I think this definition is subjective, so I don't think this can be used in the expectation. It also doesn't say where the mechanism should be provided. On the same page? On the website? Through some browser extension? |
| Kathy Eng | I don't know. My questions are documented below. | Should Conformance requirement #5 non-interference be included? |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes | The required parts of the rule all seem to be there as expected. Think the others' comments belong on Question 7. As far as those comments go, I'll defer to Wilco on his comments, as I think he knows best on the wording. To Kathy's point, I don't think we should call out failing conformance requirements when this clearly already fails an SC. SCs are what everyone reports conformance to in an Accessibility Conformance Report. |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | The ambiguities that Wilco mentions will need to be addressed as these are not allowed by ACT Rules Format. |
3. Rule assumptions
Are the assumptions acceptable?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes | 1 |
| No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | 3 |
| I don't know. My questions are documented below. | 1 |
Details
| Responder | Rule assumptions | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | An assumption is made in this rule that the SC is not satisfied if the total length of the audio is over 3 seconds. WCAG doesn't say this, it just says "3 seconds". Arguably an audio clip that plays 2 seconds of audio, pauses 2 seconds, and repeats that over and over could be argued to satisfy the SC. While I think that's an acceptable assumption, it should be included. |
| Kathy Eng | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | The definition of mechanism includes NOTE: The mechanism may be explicitly provided in the content, or may be relied upon to be provided by either the platform or by user agents, including assistive technologies. Are mechanisms that are not provided in content to be ignored in this rule? If G170 is to be used, define "near the beginning of the Web page". Within the first 3 tabs? |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | I don't know. My questions are documented below. | Not sure I understand Wilco's point. The applicability says the rule applies to audio or video elements that are over 3 seconds (3rd bullet). Agree with Kathy that G170 is ambiguous on what constitutes "near the beginning of the page". We'd need a concrete definition for all rules to implement the same. |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | The rule indeed lacks an assumption about the interpretation of the "audio [that] plays automatically for more than 3 seconds" bit of the success criteria. |
4. Implementation data
Is the implementation data correct?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes | 4 |
| No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | |
| I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | 1 |
Details
| Responder | Implementation data | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | I'm curious how SortSite got to its test data. Especially passed example 3 with the custom controls, was that done automatically or was this result generated automatically? I also think it's worth discussing of axe-core's implementation should count here. Third topic for discussion; do we have any implementation requirements for these atomic rules? |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes | To Wilco's comment on implementation requirements for atomic rules. I think all atomic rules need 1 implementation. Or is the question that these atomic rules haven't been reviewed/approved and may not have their implementations complete yet? It is a little odd to review the composite rule before the atomic ones it is made up of. |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes |
5. Consistent with WCAG
Is the rule consistent with existing WCAG documents?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes | 1 |
| No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | 4 |
| I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. |
Details
| Responder | Consistent with WCAG | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | I don't think expectation 2 of the mechanism rule is required by this SC. Mechanism doesn't even need to be something on the web, let alone visible on the same page. |
| Kathy Eng | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | Clarify mechanism definition for this rule is not the wcag definition. |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | Different definition of "mechanism" from WCAG is problematic. |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | Both the lack of assumptions and the use of "mechanism" seem like issues. As Wilco mentions, mechanisms can be relied on to be provided externally and therefore don't need to be on the same page as the applicable content. |
6. Remaining open issues
Are there any remaining open issues for this rule that were opened prior to this review?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. | 1 |
| Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. | |
| No, there are no open issues. | 4 |
Details
| Responder | Remaining open issues | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. | See my issues with the applicability The expectation note in the 3 seconds atomic rule seems like it belongs in the assumptions. |
| Kathy Eng | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Trevor Bostic | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | No, there are no open issues. | The link to open issues didn't produce any list of open issues for this rule. |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | No, there are no open issues. |
7. Other questions or concerns
Do you have any further questions or concerns about this rule?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. | 2 |
| No, I have no further questions or concerns. | 3 |
Details
| Responder | Other questions or concerns | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. | Not sure if this matters, but "outcome" in expectation isn't linked to the definition, and "passed" isn't in backticks. |
| Kathy Eng | Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. | Applicability - This rule applies to any audio or video element that has either a src attribute or a child source element that references content with a duration of more than 3 seconds that contains audio. A manual tester may not know whether the video is longer than 3 seconds to determine applicability. Passed Example 2 has no indication of how long the full video is, so it may be marked Inapplicable. |
| Trevor Bostic | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | No, I have no further questions or concerns. |
8. Readiness for publishing
Do you think this rule is ready to be published?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. | 1 |
| Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | |
| No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | 4 |
Details
| Responder | Readiness for publishing | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | |
| Kathy Eng | No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | Mechanism definition |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | I think there are enough comments on the previous questions that need to be addressed to send it back for work to be done. |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | There are some pretty important issues to address. |
More details on responses
Non-responders
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
- Katie Haritos-Shea
- David MacDonald
- Romain Deltour
- Detlev Fischer
- Chris Loiselle
- Jonathan Avila
- Rachael Bradley Montgomery
- Charles Adams
- Daniel Montalvo
- Todd Libby
- Thomas Brunet
- Catherine Droege
- Suji Sreerama
- Shane Dittmar
- Nayan Padrai
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