w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: meta viewport does not prevent zoom
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 2020-05-21 to 2020-06-04.
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 meta viewport does not prevent zoom 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 | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | |
| Kathy Eng | |
| Charu Pandhi | |
| Mary Jo Mueller |
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. | I wonder if that expectation needs to be split up. There effectively are two requirements here. Not sure if ACT RF requires this to be split or just that it suggests it. I'm pretty sure this rule needs to map to 1.4.10, in addition to mapping to 1.4.4. |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | I agree with Wilco that this should map to 1.4.10 as well given that by preventing zoom one has also prevented that the content can be presented at either 320 pixels wide or 256 pixels tall. |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Charu Pandhi | I don't know. My questions are documented below. | failure of this rule will also prevent resizing of content so map to 1.4.4 also |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes | I don't think the ACT Rules Format requires the split. This is what it says: "All expectations of an atomic rule must describe the logic that is used to determine a single passed or failed outcome for a test target." If it makes it tidier, then it could be a good suggestion but it's not required. |
3. Rule assumptions
Are the assumptions acceptable?
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 | Rule assumptions | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | There is a missing assumption; that there is no other mechanism available to resize the text content. Browsers often do have a mechanism to resize text. The assumption that is there might not be needed if the rule would just check if the page is empty. That shouldn't be too hard to do. Not a blocker as far as I'm concerned though. |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | I agree with Wilco that there's a missing assumption that there's no other mechanism no resize text, which I find to be a reasonable assumption. The assumption that is already there also seems like it should be accounted for in the applicability of the rule. |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Charu Pandhi | Yes | Technically if the tag is ignored in the newer browsers than it is not a failure so can be obsolete at some point, can we state that? |
| Mary Jo Mueller | I don't know. My questions are documented below. | I honestly don't know the details of what might/might not be added into assumptions, but based on the comments I see it looks like they're lacking. |
4. Implementation data
Is the implementation data correct?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes | 5 |
| 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 data | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Charu Pandhi | Yes | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes |
5. Consistent with WCAG
Is the rule consistent with existing WCAG documents?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes | 3 |
| 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 | Consistent with WCAG | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Charu Pandhi | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | yes if we map to 1.4.4 also |
| Mary Jo Mueller | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | Add in the mapping to 1.4.10. |
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. | |
| No, there are no open issues. | 5 |
Details
| Responder | Remaining open issues | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Kathy Eng | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Charu Pandhi | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | 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 |
Details
| Responder | Other questions or concerns | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Kathy Eng | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | The assumption states that "only users with older mobile browsers can experience issues tested by this rule". Can this be more specific about "older" (identify versions that would have the issue)? At some point, if this rule is considered obsolete, how would that be indicated? |
| Charu Pandhi | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | 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. | |
| Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | 5 |
| No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. |
Details
| Responder | Readiness for publishing | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | As described above. |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | An additional requirement, success criteria 1.4.10, should be added to the requirements mapping, the assumption that no other mechanism is available to resize text should be added, and the existing assumption that the page has visible text should likely be worked into the applicability. |
| Kathy Eng | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | See comments in #7 |
| Charu Pandhi | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | As described by all above, except for the mapping to 1.4.4 (which is already there so doesn't require change.) We might need to have a consistent way to document rules that will eventually be deprecated or are only valid up to a certain point. Not quite sure where/how we should do that. |
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