W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT TF Weekly Survey - 7 December 2016

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email addresses: shadi@w3.org,maryjom@us.ibm.com,wilco.fiers@deque.com

This questionnaire was open from 2016-12-01 to 2016-12-07.

7 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Resolutions of 7 December 2016
  2. Review proposal for Issue 7: Clarify what we mean by negative tests
  3. Review proposal for Action 11: Draft of section 2.2 rule description
  4. Review proposed update to the Introduction section

1. Resolutions of 7 December 2016

Please read the 18 November 2016 ACT teleconference meeting minutes. The summary and the link to the full minutes is on the 2016 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. 1

Details

Responder Resolutions of 7 December 2016Comments
Wilco Fiers 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.
Romain Deltour I have reviewed the minutes and have no questions, they seem clear.
Detlev Fischer I have reviewed the minutes and have no questions, they seem clear. I wasn't sure whether you meant the 23 November Meeting Minutes or the
16 November Meeting Minutes, but I have read both.
Shadi Abou-Zahra I have reviewed the minutes and have no questions, they seem clear.
Maureen Kraft I have reviewed the minutes but have questions, explained below. Should be 11/23

2. Review proposal for Issue 7: Clarify what we mean by negative tests

Review the following text proposed for section 2.8 of the Accessibility Conformance Testing Framework Requirements document in response to Issue 7: Clarify what we mean by negative tests.

  • 2.8 Rules Test for Failures

    The ACT Framework will focus on defining rules that enable clear reasons for non-compliance to be given to the user e.g. “Compliance Issue (F25): the title node, located in the head node, is empty”. Where possible, ACT Rules should map to [WCAG 2.0 Failure Techniques](https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/failures.html).

Choose one of the following and record your comments, if any:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept with no changes 3
Accept with the following changes 4
Do not accept for the following reasons

Details

Responder Review proposal for Issue 7: Clarify what we mean by negative testsComments
Wilco Fiers Accept with no changes
Charu Pandhi Accept with no changes
Mary Jo Mueller Accept with the following changes Suggest changing 'enable' to 'identify'.

The second sentence still seems to indicate we're only mapping to failure techniques, but that isn't really true. We'd map to compliance techniques too, I would think, when tests indicate the technique wasn't implemented correctly.
Could a more generic statement be made such as: Where possible, ACT Rules will map to the corresponding technique that failed to pass the test, including the [WCAG 2.0 Failure Techniques]...
Romain Deltour Accept with the following changes It seems to me that the important point is that rules test for non-compliance. The current wording sounds (to me) that it focuses on "enabl[ing] clear reasons".

I'd reword along the lines of:
"The ACT Framework focuses on defining rules that can be evaluated to detect compliance issues. When a rule's application detects a compliance issue, the result should describe clear reasons for the non-compliance. E.g. ..."
Detlev Fischer Accept with no changes
Shadi Abou-Zahra Accept with the following changes 1. What is the definition of the term "compliance"? WCAG uses "conformance" requirements and "meeting" success criteria. We probably shouldn't introduce new terminology unless really necessary.

2. While this is an example, I think we should reference Failures differently. Using this approach, we would end up with several error message with the same ID "Compliance Issue (F25)", which is confusing.
Maureen Kraft Accept with the following changes This is better but should not mention WCAG 2.0 Failure Techniques while WCAG ACT Framework is generic and not targeting WCAG 2.0 specifically. I would remove the second statement.

3. Review proposal for Action 11: Draft of section 2.2 rule description

Review the following text proposed for the Rule Description section 2.2 of the Accessibility Conformance Testing Framework Requirements document in response to Action 11: Write up a proposal for 2.2 rule description.

  • 2.2 Rule Description

    Each ACT Rule will have a description that in plain English, should provide a broad understanding of what accessibility requirement the rule is supposed to test along with any limitation or assumtions it may have. It explains what are the failure conditions and why.

Choose one of the following and record your comments, if any:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept with no changes 2
Accept with the following changes 5
Do not accept for the following reasons

Details

Responder Review proposal for Action 11: Draft of section 2.2 rule descriptionComments
Wilco Fiers Accept with no changes
Charu Pandhi Accept with the following changes Corrected the typo - assumtion -> assumptions
Mary Jo Mueller Accept with the following changes Fix spelling error 'assumptions'.
Romain Deltour Accept with the following changes Needs to be reworded into one (or several) statement(s) using RFC2119 keywords. E.g.:

"An ACT Rule MUST have a description in plain English. The description SHOULD provide a broad understanding of the object of the rule, and explain what are the failure conditions and why. The description MUST list any limitation or assumption the rule can have."
Detlev Fischer Accept with no changes
Shadi Abou-Zahra Accept with the following changes The first sentence is very long and difficult to parse. I suggest using a bulleted list.

[[
Each ACT Rule will have a description that:
- Is in plain English;
- Explains the accessibility requirement being tested;
- Lists any limitations and assumptions for the test;
- Explains the failure conditions and their reasons.
]]
Maureen Kraft Accept with the following changes spelling error: assumtions should be assumptions
Also, spell out ACT rule in the second sentence instead of using it and clean up grammar. "Each ACT rule explains what the failure conditions are and why they cause a failure."

4. Review proposed update to the Introduction section

Review the following update proposed for the Introduction section of the Accessibility Conformance Testing Framework Requirements document in response feedback received during the 9 November ACT TF meeting: 9 November Meeting Minutes.

  • The Accessibility Conformance Testing Framework (ACT Framework) defines a set of requirements to produce a transparent set of accessibility test methods that produce consistent validation results. This work will lead to a more common understanding by accessibility experts on how to test accessibility standards, such as WCAG 2.0. In support of this framework is a set of test descriptions, known as Accessibility Conformance Testing Rules (ACT Rules) which define test descriptions that meet the requirements outlined by the ACT Framework.

Choose one of the following and record your comments, if any:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept with no changes 4
Accept with the following changes 2
Do not accept for the following reasons

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Review proposed update to the Introduction sectionComments
Wilco Fiers
Charu Pandhi Accept with no changes
Mary Jo Mueller Accept with no changes
Romain Deltour Accept with no changes
Detlev Fischer Accept with no changes
Shadi Abou-Zahra Accept with the following changes Does the ACT Framework define "requirements" versus a "format" or "template" or such? Also, are ACT Rules "in support" or "in accordance" to this framework? Maybe:

[[
The Accessibility Conformance Testing Framework (ACT Framework) defines a format for accessibility testing rules (ACT Rules) that produce consistent validation results. This work will lead to more transparency and common understanding on how to test conformance to accessibility standards, such as WCAG 2.0.
]]
Maureen Kraft Accept with the following changes The Accessibility Conformance Testing Framework (ACT Framework) defines a set of requirements, format and measurable qualities to produce a transparent set of accessibility test methods that produce consistent validation results.

More details on responses

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Katie Haritos-Shea
  2. David MacDonald
  3. Alastair Campbell
  4. Chris Loiselle
  5. Jonathan Avila
  6. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  7. Charles Adams
  8. Kathy Eng
  9. Daniel Montalvo
  10. Helen Burge
  11. Todd Libby
  12. Thomas Brunet
  13. Catherine Droege
  14. Suji Sreerama
  15. Shane Dittmar
  16. Nayan Padrai
  17. Sage Keriazes
  18. Shunguo Yan

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.