W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: Role attribute has valid value

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 2020-09-28 to 2020-10-15.

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 accessibility requirements
  6. Remaining open issues
  7. Other questions or concerns
  8. Rule is up-to-date
  9. Readiness for publishing

1. Instructions

Role attribute has valid value was updated due to comments documented in Issue 487 from the last survey on the rule. Review the updated rule 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

ChoiceAll responders
Results

Details

Responder Instructions
Wilco Fiers
Levon Spradlin
Mary Jo Mueller
Charu Pandhi
Trevor Bostic
Kathy Eng

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
Wilco Fiers Yes
Levon Spradlin Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes
Charu Pandhi Yes
Trevor Bostic Yes
Kathy Eng Yes

3. Rule assumptions

Are the assumptions acceptable?

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 Rule assumptionsComments
Wilco Fiers Yes
Levon Spradlin Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes Editorial, add punctuation at the end of the sentence.
Charu Pandhi Yes
Trevor Bostic Yes
Kathy Eng Yes

4. Implementation data

Is the implementation data correct?

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 Implementation dataComments
Wilco Fiers Yes
Levon Spradlin Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes
Charu Pandhi Yes
Trevor Bostic Yes
Kathy Eng Yes

5. Consistent with accessibility requirements

Is the rule consistent with existing accessibility standards (e.g. WCAG, ARIA, etc.)?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 1
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. 4

Details

Responder Consistent with accessibility requirementsComments
Wilco Fiers No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. It seems to me only ARIA4 actually maps to this rule. G108 does not in my opinion. The ARIA specs that are referenced don't have a requirement to only use a role attribute that is in the spec as far as I can tell, so I don't think those map to this either.
Levon Spradlin Yes
Mary Jo Mueller I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. While someone could choose to extend ARIA, the only way to ensure full accessibility support is to have the ARIA roles in standards. By listing the various ARIA modules in this rule, I think this is sufficient to say that anything outside of the standardized ARIA roles documented in these modules is a failure of this rule. Then the test tool will have to decide what error to surface (or warning) to say you should check your attributes.

This will catch misspellings (which I've seen a lot). As far as G108 goes, it seems that if the ARIA role isn't a valid one, wouldn't a fall-back role be used? Would a repurposed HTML element with a "bad" ARIA role have a fall-back role of the original HTML element. If so, it might not fail G108. The "failure" would have to be surfaced as more of a warning to users to check the role usage.
Charu Pandhi I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. G108: is about html mrakup, don't think it is the correct mapping for this rule.
Trevor Bostic I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. From readings others comments, I agree that it primarily maps to ARIA4. I am wondering what this rule looked like before that mapped to 4.1.2. It does not seem out of the realm to me that checking for a valid role could fall under 4.1.2, so I am wondering what others see as the major blocking points preventing it from doing so (i.e., what is or isn't the rule doing now that conflicts with mapping to 4.1.2).
Kathy Eng I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. G108 should not be included since does not mention aria. It states "The role attribute however may already be provided since it is a standard component with a fixed role."

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.
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. 6

Details

Responder Remaining open issuesComments
Wilco Fiers No, there are no open issues.
Levon Spradlin No, there are no open issues.
Mary Jo Mueller No, there are no open issues.
Charu Pandhi No, there are no open issues.
Trevor Bostic No, there are no open issues.
Kathy Eng 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. 2
No, I have no further questions or concerns. 4

Details

Responder Other questions or concernsComments
Wilco Fiers Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. In our last survey, we requested the rule be updated so that it can properly map to SC 4.1.2, instead of doing that, a mapping to WCAG was removed. In its current form, I'm not sure what the value of this rule is.
Levon Spradlin No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. I tend to agree with Wilco. If this doesn't map to any WCAG SC, then why are we taking CG time to develop it and TF time analyzing and reviewing it? We've got to focus on WCAG conformance rules that we can publish and reference from the WCAG materials.
Charu Pandhi No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Trevor Bostic No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Kathy Eng No, I have no further questions or concerns. - many of the glossary terms (explicit, implicit, etc.) aren't linked from the rule. If the glossary will be a separate document, the relevant definitions will be disconnected from this rule.

8. Rule is up-to-date

Is the rule up to date? If so, the accessibility support should still be relevant, it should follow the recommended writing style, and use up to date links.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes, all information is up-to-date. 6
No, it needs the following changes.
I don't know, but I have the following concerns.

Details

Responder Rule is up-to-dateComments
Wilco Fiers Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Levon Spradlin Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Charu Pandhi Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Trevor Bostic Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Kathy Eng Yes, all information is up-to-date.

9. 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.
Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. 1
No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. 5

Details

Responder Readiness for publishingComments
Wilco Fiers No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below.
Levon Spradlin No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. Wilco noted that the rule doesn't align with 4.1.2 now, but isn't that what the G108 technique does, mapping the rule to the success criteria?
Mary Jo Mueller No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. We need to map to a SC here, at the very least.
Charu Pandhi Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. See my respose to #5
Trevor Bostic 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. - remove G108

- agree with other comments that there is no wcag requirement for this rule, so it is not a priority

More details on responses

  • Kathy Eng: last responded on 15, October 2020 at 04:22 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Katie Haritos-Shea
  2. David MacDonald
  3. Romain Deltour
  4. Detlev Fischer
  5. Chris Loiselle
  6. Jonathan Avila
  7. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  8. Charles Adams
  9. Daniel Montalvo
  10. Todd Libby
  11. Thomas Brunet
  12. Catherine Droege
  13. Suji Sreerama
  14. Shane Dittmar

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.