w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: Image has non-empty 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 2020-06-01 to 2020-07-03.
6 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Instructions
- Consistency with ACT Rules Format
- Rule assumptions
- Implementation data
- Consistent with accessibility requirements
- Remaining open issues
- Other questions or concerns
- Readiness for publishing
1. Instructions
Review the rule Image has non-empty accessible name and answer the questions in this survey. This rule has been updated due to comments documented in Issue #430
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
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results |
Details
| Responder | Instructions |
|---|---|
| Mary Jo Mueller | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | |
| Wilco Fiers | |
| Detlev Fischer | |
| Kathy Eng | |
| Charu Pandhi |
2. Consistency with ACT Rules Format
Does the rule follow the ACT Rules Format 1.0?
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 are documented below. | 2 |
Details
| Responder | Consistency with ACT Rules Format | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mary Jo Mueller | I don't know. My questions are documented below. | This is the first time I focused in on this, but I'm finding it odd having the requirements mapping have references that are techniques, not WCAG SC - especially when they are also listed in the Background section. WCAG techniques themselves are not "required". Even Failure techniques are not themselves "requirements" but supporting info regarding the requirement. I notice a lot of the rules are now having techniques listed in the Requirements section, but I'd like to understand why. |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Detlev Fischer | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Charu Pandhi | I don't know. My questions are documented below. | Images with alt="" will pass the rule, they do not get an implicit role of none per chrome a11y tree. It just says accessibility node not exposed. Should that be clarified under Expectation? Also, image with the title and no alt passes the rule. Can that be clarified under Expectations as well? |
3. Rule assumptions
Are the assumptions acceptable?
Summary
| Choice | All 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 | Rule assumptions | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Detlev Fischer | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Charu Pandhi | Yes |
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. | 2 |
Details
| Responder | Implementation data | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Detlev Fischer | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | Applicability: The rule applies to HTML img elements and HTML elements with the semantic role of img, except for elements that are not included in the accessibility tree. Passed Example 6: This img element has an explicit role of presentation because of the value of the role attribute - shouldn't this be inapplicable since it's not in accessibility tree due to role=presentation? Same for Passed Ex 5 and Passed 7 |
| Charu Pandhi | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | alt="" does not imply role of none per https://www.w3.org/TR/html-aria/#docconformance saya no corresponding role |
5. Consistent with accessibility requirements
Is the rule consistent with existing accessibility requirements (e.g. WCAG, ARIA, etc.)?
Summary
| Choice | All 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 accessibility requirements | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Detlev Fischer | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Charu Pandhi | Yes |
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. | |
| 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. | 3 |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Remaining open issues | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mary Jo Mueller | Not sure, but Issue 1165: "A significant number test files have unrelated accessibility violations" came up as an open issue for this and other rules. | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. | Issue https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1165 does not need to be resolved in my opinion. |
| Detlev Fischer | No, there are no open issues. | |
| 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/1165 |
| Charu Pandhi | 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. | |
| No, I have no further questions or concerns. | 5 |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Other questions or concerns | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mary Jo Mueller | There are some typos: - Need a period at the end of the sentence in the description section - Accessibility support section, last bullet, second sentence: "does not specifies" should read "does not specify". Another thing that is becoming increasingly noticeable to me is the size of the glossary with the addition of examples and links and all that other stuff makes the rule very long and the sections beyond it much more tedious to reach. Should we have a glossary page that includes all glossary terms and exhaustive info and then only provide the terms with a basic definition and link to that info inside of the rules? Just a thought because I think the glossary has now overcome the rest of the content in size. | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Wilco Fiers | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Detlev Fischer | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Kathy Eng | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Charu Pandhi | 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. | 3 |
| Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | 2 |
| No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | 1 |
Details
| Responder | Readiness for publishing | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | See comments above. I don't think they're necessarily show-stoppers other than maybe the decision on whether or not to include techniques in the Requirements section. |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | Needs a bit of editorial work as pointed out by Mary Jo. |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. | |
| Detlev Fischer | Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. | |
| Kathy Eng | No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | These conflict: Applicability - The rule applies to HTML img elements and HTML elements with the semantic role of img, except for elements that are not included in the accessibility tree. Expectation - Each target element has an accessible name that is not empty (""), or has a semantic role of none or presentation. |
| Charu Pandhi | Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. |
More details on responses
Non-responders
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
- Katie Haritos-Shea
- David MacDonald
- Romain Deltour
- 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