W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: Image has accessible name

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 2020-01-22 to 2020-02-05.

6 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Instructions
  2. Consistency with ACT Rules Format
  3. Rule assumptions
  4. Implementation data
  5. Consistent with WCAG
  6. Remaining open issues
  7. Other questions or concerns
  8. Readiness for publishing

1. Instructions

Review the rule Image has accessible name and answer the questions in this survey. If there are issues with the rule, either open an issue in GitHub or provide details in the entry fields for the applicable question.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results

Details

Responder Instructions
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð
Wilco Fiers
Kathy Eng
Jey Nandakumar
Sailesh Panchang
Trevor Bostic

2. Consistency with ACT Rules Format

Does the rule follow the ACT Rules Format 1.0?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 6
No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below.
I don't know. My questions are documented below.

Details

Responder Consistency with ACT Rules FormatComments
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Jey Nandakumar Yes
Sailesh Panchang Yes
Trevor Bostic Yes

3. Rule assumptions

Are the assumptions acceptable?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 5
No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below.
I don't know. My questions are documented below.

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

Details

Responder Rule assumptionsComments
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Jey Nandakumar Yes
Sailesh Panchang Not applicable: no assumptions listed.
Trevor Bostic Yes

4. Implementation data

Is the implementation data correct?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 4
No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. 1
I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. 1

Details

Responder Implementation dataComments
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. With Rule Description: This rule checks that each image *that is not marked as decorative*, has an accessible name, and Expectation: Each target element has an accessible name that is not empty (""), or is marked as decorative, the following "Pass" test cases (5, 6, 7) should be Inapplicable because they are marked as decorative:

Passed Example 5 - The HTML img element is marked as decorative through an empty alt attribute.
<img alt="" />

Passed Example 6 - The HTML img element is marked as decorative through role="presentation".
<img role="presentation" />

Passed Example 7 - The HTML img element is marked as decorative through role="none".
<img role="none" />

Also,
https://act-rules.github.io/rules/23a2a8#failed-example-4

Failed Example 4 - The HTML img element has an empty accessible name.
<img alt=" " />

Trusted Tester would consider this a decorative img and would mark this one Inapplicable.
Jey Nandakumar Yes
Sailesh Panchang Yes
Trevor Bostic I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. 1. We should remove passed example 8 for reasons discussed previously.
2. For parity, I think we should add a passed example of div positioned off screen that does have an accessible name or is marked as decorative. I think this helps with clarity on the positioning not being the failing factor.
3. We use "empty accessible name" inconsistently. Failed example 4 has whitespace in the alt text (i.e., atl=" ") vs the alt text being null (i.e., alt="")

5. Consistent with WCAG

Is the rule consistent with existing WCAG documents?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 6
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.

Details

Responder Consistent with WCAGComments
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Jey Nandakumar Yes
Sailesh Panchang Yes
Trevor Bostic Yes

6. Remaining open issues

Are there any remaining open issues for this rule that were opened prior to this review?

Summary

ChoiceAll 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. 2
No, there are no open issues. 2

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

Details

Responder Remaining open issuesComments
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/446
Wilco Fiers Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. The following issue by Mark Rogers is relevant to this rule. While I think it is good to resolve this, I do not believe this is a blocker:
https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1124
Kathy Eng Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1124
Jey Nandakumar No, there are no open issues.
Sailesh Panchang
Trevor Bostic No, there are no open issues.

7. Other questions or concerns

Do you have any further questions or concerns about this rule?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below.
No, I have no further questions or concerns. 6

Details

Responder Other questions or concernsComments
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Wilco Fiers No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Kathy Eng No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Jey Nandakumar No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Sailesh Panchang No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Trevor Bostic No, I have no further questions or concerns.

8. Readiness for publishing

Do you think this rule is ready to be published?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. 2
Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. 3
No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. 1

Details

Responder Readiness for publishingComments
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. The remaining issue needs to be resolved.
Wilco Fiers Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. The first note in the expectation should make clear that alt="" only works for img elements.

Background section:
- Missing link to understanding doc

Examples:
- Passed example 8 may pass the rule, but it does not pass the SC, listing this as a pass ia problematic. I suggest removing it.
- Inapplicable 1 should have an accessible name.
Kathy Eng No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. Test case updates are for Passed #4 and Failed #s 5,6,7. I would change these to Inapplicable. Then Implementations are affected.
Jey Nandakumar Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.
Sailesh Panchang Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.
Trevor Bostic Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. After discussion on changes on implementation data.

More details on responses

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Katie Haritos-Shea
  2. David MacDonald
  3. Romain Deltour
  4. Mary Jo Mueller
  5. Detlev Fischer
  6. Chris Loiselle
  7. Jonathan Avila
  8. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  9. Charles Adams
  10. Daniel Montalvo
  11. Todd Libby
  12. Thomas Brunet
  13. Catherine Droege
  14. Suji Sreerama
  15. Shane Dittmar
  16. 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 w3c/wbs-design or by mail to sysreq.