W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT TF Weekly Survey - 8 March 2017

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 2017-03-06 to 2017-03-08.

6 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Resolutions of 22, 23 February 2017
  2. Review edits to the ACT Framework spec: Pull request #60
  3. Review of ACT Framework Editor's draft

1. Resolutions of 22, 23 February 2017

Please read the 22 and 23 February 2017 ACT teleconference meeting minutes. The summary and the link to the full minutes is on the ACT Task Force Minutes wiki page.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I have reviewed the minutes and have no questions, they seem clear. 6
I have reviewed the minutes but have questions, explained below.

Details

Responder Resolutions of 22, 23 February 2017Comments
Romain Deltour I have reviewed the minutes and have no questions, they seem clear.
Charu Pandhi I have reviewed the minutes and have no questions, they seem clear.
Mary Jo Mueller I have reviewed the minutes and have no questions, they seem clear.
Shadi Abou-Zahra I have reviewed the minutes and have no questions, they seem clear.
Maureen Kraft I have reviewed the minutes and have no questions, they seem clear.
Wilco Fiers I have reviewed the minutes and have no questions, they seem clear.

2. Review edits to the ACT Framework spec: Pull request #60

Review the edits to the Introduction and Scope sections in pull request 60. Should pull request 60 be merged?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 6
Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.
No. I have left reasons for my objection in the comments of the pull request.

Details

Responder Review edits to the ACT Framework spec: Pull request #60Comments
Romain Deltour Yes
Charu Pandhi Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes
Shadi Abou-Zahra Yes
Maureen Kraft Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes

3. Review of ACT Framework Editor's draft

Hopefully you have had time since 16 February to review the latest editor's draft of the ACT Framework specification. Please document any issues you found in the wcag-act Issues. Do you agree the ACT Framework is ready to be released as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes, the document looks ready.
Yes, with suggestions for improvements documented in the wcag-act issues list. 6
No. I have left reasons for my objection documented in the wcag-act issues list.

Details

Responder Review of ACT Framework Editor's draftComments
Romain Deltour Yes, with suggestions for improvements documented in the wcag-act issues list. There are some minor editorial glitches here and there, like markdown markers (asterisks and backticks) or lists or links that have not been properly converted to HTML.
Charu Pandhi Yes, with suggestions for improvements documented in the wcag-act issues list. The 2 bullets under Rule description are repeated under Accessibility requirements, need to remove the bullets.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, with suggestions for improvements documented in the wcag-act issues list. Really important:
Sections 6.2 Rule Aggregation, 7.1 Managing Exceptions, and 7.3 Accuracy Benchmarking
- These sections don't seem to contain any draft text but instead the original Editor's note. Are these pull requests that were missed somehow, or did something happen that the content wasn't developed?


Editorial:

In general, sometimes 'MUST' is used, sometimes '*must*' is used and sometimes 'must' is used. Be consistent to use 'MUST' for the normative statements.

Section 3.3: Uses SC as an acronym without spelling it out anywhere in the document as "Success Criterion".

Section 3.4: Last sentence isn't a sentence, suggest combining it with the previous sentence as follows:
For example, A rule for Success Criterion 1.4.1: Use of Color has to make an assumption that CSS is used to make a link visually evident - typically by using CSS background, border, color, font, or text-decoration properties.

Section 3.5:
- Editor's note - 'Taskforce' should be 'Task Force'. Also, don't accessibility support issues also lie in the user agent as well and should that be included in the editors note?
- First paragraph - Don't need a comma after 'Determining if a web page is accessible'. Accessibility Supported in WCAG 2.0 - is that supposed to be a link to the definition in WCAG? If so, it's not working as expected. Not sure I understand why it is important to know which assistive technologies are to be used for this page. Do you mean AT's you know you're going to test with, or AT's you know the end users will be using (an answer which in many cases you wouldn't know, like if you are testing a publicly available website).
- 2nd paragraph - Missing 'the' in 'With this information, the user...'
- 3rd paragraph - After "Accessibility Test Tools" you should provide the acronym (ATT) so later when ATT is used it is more obvious. Should we use the <abbr> tag to provide the long name?

Section 4.1:
- This section says the ACT rule must include a detailed description of the test subject type, but that was not stated in section 3.2 Rule Description. Nor did it talk about being able to have a reference to further description as stated in the last paragraph of this section.
- First sentence: Missing comma after "including publications and applications," and should be 'before they are' rather than 'before it is'.
- Remove extra comma in 3rd sentence "...DOM tree before rendering..."
- 4th sentence, comma makes this statement a bit awkward. Suggest rewriting the sentence as: "Accessibility tests could be run at each of these stages."

Section 4.1.4: Missing 'a' in the first sentence: 'A template is a document...'

Section 6.1:
- Lots of words with asterisks such as *Selected item*. Were these supposed to show up bold and the markup didn't work or what?
- Are these parts of the data format required? If so, 'MUST' should be used in the sentence before the bulleted list, such as "which MUST have at least the following properties".

Section 6.1.2:
- I'm wondering if the pointer method included in the example in Section 6.1.1 meets the Pointer Methods in RDF 1.0 spec. It shows the syntax as ptr:pointer. Maybe that doesn't matter in this case?

Section 6.1.4:
- Hopefully I'm not changing the meaning with this suggested edit. "...ACT Rule output data MUST include the following contextual information:
- the Web page, file or other test subject the rule was applied to and
- an identifier of the rule itself.

Section 7.2: I think an example might be useful.

Section 7.4.2:
- Section is titled 'Change List' but the contents use the term 'change log'. Suggest changing the section title to 'Change Log'
- First sentence, remove the comma.
- 'must' in last sentence...should that be 'MUST'?

Section 7.4.3:
- Shouldn't 'may' be 'MAY' (first sentence) and 'must' be "MUST" (second sentence)?
Shadi Abou-Zahra Yes, with suggestions for improvements documented in the wcag-act issues list.
Maureen Kraft Yes, with suggestions for improvements documented in the wcag-act issues list. With the merge from pull 60.
Wilco Fiers Yes, with suggestions for improvements documented in the wcag-act issues list. See my PR62

More details on responses

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Katie Haritos-Shea
  2. David MacDonald
  3. Detlev Fischer
  4. Chris Loiselle
  5. Jonathan Avila
  6. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  7. Charles Adams
  8. Kathy Eng
  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.