W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: Visible label is part of 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 2020-11-11 to 2020-12-03.

5 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

Review the rule Visible label is part of accessible name which updated to resolve Issue 491. 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
Trevor Bostic
Wilco Fiers
Kathy Eng
Detlev Fischer
Mary Jo Mueller

2. Consistency with ACT Rules Format

Does the rule follow the ACT Rules Format 1.0?

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.

Details

Responder Consistency with ACT Rules FormatComments
Trevor Bostic Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Detlev Fischer Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes

3. Rule assumptions

Are the assumptions acceptable?

Summary

ChoiceAll 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. 1

Details

Responder Rule assumptionsComments
Trevor Bostic Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Detlev Fischer I don't know. My questions are documented below. I can think of cases where elements have several visible label elements, for example a construct of "Sorting Code" label to the left of a text input with a valid example of input above. In this case, the expectation would be that Sorting code is part of the accname, not the example text. The rule does not seem to cover that case.
A similar case could be the combination of label and placeholder where placeholder should probably be discounted (but would need to be contained in accName) if it is the only way of labelling the control, or a floating label construct.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes

4. Implementation data

Is the implementation data correct?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 3
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 dataComments
Trevor Bostic Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. - Passed Ex 6 - not sure that this rule should apply. The "search" text is not visible, and the magnifying glass is not a "a type of non-text content that uses text characters as symbols".

- Inapplicable Ex 2 - if this is inapplicable because it input is not a widget, please update the explanation. Counter to the given explanation, the Understanding article includes "in the absence of left-side labels, immediately above and aligned with the left edge of each input)" and this should pass.

- would be good to include an image of text in the pass/fail examples.
Detlev Fischer I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. Not checked.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes

5. Consistent with accessibility requirements

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

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 3
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 Consistent with accessibility requirementsComments
Trevor Bostic Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng Yes

Detlev Fischer I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. Yes but the issue raised above might need explicit coverage. There may be other scenarios introducing contextual uncertainty what the label is and whether it should be counted as label - as in cases where there is a heading for a pop-up (e.g. a search pop-up) that can be interpreted as a label of the field, but the field itself may be visually labelled by an icon (loupe) and therefore arguably not fall under "label in name". Would we then require the heading to be part of the accName of the field? I think it is a grey area.
Mary Jo Mueller I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. Interesting point brought up by Detlev. But if clarity is needed, the AG WG would need to clarify in the requirement what is counted as the label. I believe it is the visible label not an icon with alt text to form the label. IMO, this requirement came into being because of voice control software where the user sees a visible label and speaks it to navigate to the element, but the label was overridden by an aria label that didn't contain the exact verbiage which prevent navigation from working correctly.

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. 3
No, there are no open issues. 1

Details

Responder Remaining open issuesComments
Trevor Bostic 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. All three open issues are about expanding the scope of the rule to be able to fail more types of issues. This needs further discussion as all of them have a potential of adding new types of false positives. Suggest we publish the rule as is, and let the CG figure out if they want any of these changes later.
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/1500
Detlev Fischer Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. See comments above.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. There are three open issues. I'm not familiar enough with them to know if they need to be addressed prior to publishing.

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. 5

Details

Responder Other questions or concernsComments
Trevor Bostic 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.
Detlev Fischer No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Mary Jo Mueller No, I have no further questions or concerns.

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. 4
No, it needs the following changes.
I don't know, but I have the following concerns. 1

Details

Responder Rule is up-to-dateComments
Trevor Bostic Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Wilco Fiers Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Kathy Eng Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Detlev Fischer I don't know, but I have the following concerns. Concerns listed above. I can see cases where a strict application of the rule is difficult.
Mary Jo Mueller 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. 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.

Details

Responder Readiness for publishingComments
Trevor Bostic Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.
Wilco Fiers Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.
Kathy Eng Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. See 4. implementation comments
Detlev Fischer Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. Possibly cover / or separate from / edge cases described above.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.

More details on responses

  • Trevor Bostic: last responded on 19, November 2020 at 13:36 (UTC)
  • Wilco Fiers: last responded on 25, November 2020 at 13:51 (UTC)
  • Kathy Eng: last responded on 2, December 2020 at 21:45 (UTC)
  • Detlev Fischer: last responded on 3, December 2020 at 09:05 (UTC)
  • Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 3, December 2020 at 14:34 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

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