W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT TF work statement update

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 2019-10-21 to 2019-10-24.

7 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. About this survey
  2. ACT work statements for the AG WG charter
  3. ACT work statements for the AG WG charter

1. About this survey

This survey is to solidify the proposed work for our task force going forward which to be included in the proposed AG WG charter.

Provide any thoughts you have in the questions below, both on the proposed work items and for the last question, add any work items that you feel should be added.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results

Details

Responder About this survey
Kathy Eng
Wilco Fiers
Maureen Kraft
Romain Deltour
Trevor Bostic
Mary Jo Mueller
Kathleen Wahlbin

2. ACT work statements for the AG WG charter

The following 5 things are work items the ACT TF should have in our statement of work:
  1. Maintenance of the ACT Rules Format 1.0 specification
    For example:
    • maintain an errata
    • handle feature request issues that come in
    • handle questions or other things that come up about the spec
    • if needed, extend the working group note with new aspects
    • make clarifications, and so on.
  2. Silver collaboration

    Work with the Silver TF to ensure the ACT Rules Format spec and rules can work with the Silver test requirements and conformance model.

  3. Implementers benchmark

    Develop a comparison of implementers of rules to show which tools are implementing the rules in the ACT Rules repository.

  4. Rule review, publication and coordination of change requests
  5. Rule data format (RDF)

    Provide a way to express rules in different rule formats such as EARL and others.

Do you agree with the proposed list as the work statement to send forward to the AG WG to include in their draft charter? Please add any comments or issues you have on this list in the field below. If you feel that something should not be in the list, state so in your comment with your rationale.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I agree with the proposed work statement without any changes. 2
I mostly agree with the proposed work statement, with the following comments listed below. 5
I disagree with the proposed work statement for the following reasons.

Details

Responder ACT work statements for the AG WG charterComments
Kathy Eng I agree with the proposed work statement without any changes.
Wilco Fiers I mostly agree with the proposed work statement, with the following comments listed below. I'll take them one at a time:

1. I'm not in favour of us looking at an errata right away. I think we should hold off at least 6 months, see how things shake out, before even considering if an errata is necessary. That will tell us if things resolve themselves or if there are issues that really can't be overcome with what we have now.

2. Totally in favour of this

3. Also, totally in favour

4. Absolutely

5. I do not believe an RDF format for ACT RF is useful. I think we should explore if providing more information about how to use EARL with JSON-LD will help get more implementors to contribute their tools / methodologies.
Maureen Kraft I mostly agree with the proposed work statement, with the following comments listed below.
I think other issues could be bugs or editorial updates and not necessarily feature requests.

I'm a little unclear about the RDF. Will we expand the specification or provide implementations that demonstrate how to represent in EARL and other formats?
Romain Deltour I mostly agree with the proposed work statement, with the following comments listed below. +1 to Wilco's comment.
Trevor Bostic I agree with the proposed work statement without any changes.
Mary Jo Mueller I mostly agree with the proposed work statement, with the following comments listed below. I'm in agreement with #1, 2, and 4. To me the benchmark should be more of a consolidated testbed (with all of the rule test snippets neatly packaged up) so that tool developers can check their tools against them. That way tool vendors can self-validate and self-report if asked if they implement the ACT Ruleset. I don't necessarily think there needs to be a public list of tools that the W3C would need to ensure is maintained. #5, the RDF is not something within my personal expertise, so I would have to defer to others whether this is a worthwhile endeavor as another piece of work to develop and maintain.
Kathleen Wahlbin I mostly agree with the proposed work statement, with the following comments listed below. I think 1-4 are the most important and should be the focus.

3. ACT work statements for the AG WG charter

Is there any additional work the ACT TF should include in our work statement? If you feel something is missing, describe it in the comments below.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I don't think there are any missing work items. 4
I think there is additional work the ACT TF should undertake, as described in the comments below. 3

Details

Responder ACT work statements for the AG WG charterComments
Kathy Eng I think there is additional work the ACT TF should undertake, as described in the comments below. Not sure if ACT TF or other group would do this - create a table that maps SCs to their Rules
Wilco Fiers I don't think there are any missing work items.
Maureen Kraft I don't think there are any missing work items.
Romain Deltour I don't think there are any missing work items.
Trevor Bostic I don't think there are any missing work items.
Mary Jo Mueller I think there is additional work the ACT TF should undertake, as described in the comments below. I agree with Kathy that it would be useful to have a table that maps rules to WCAG criteria. This could be beneficial for implementations to gather all of the right rules together and see if all of the various aspects of validation have been covered. It will help identify possible missing rules and can be used to see what manual rules might be needed to supplement the automated ones.
Kathleen Wahlbin I think there is additional work the ACT TF should undertake, as described in the comments below. This may be part of #1 or could be part of #3 -- gather feedback on the implementation of the ACT framework and consider changes or additions to the framework based on implementation feedback. We are currently using this in the ARC product and have needed to extend it to accommodate our needs.

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. 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.