W3C

Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: ARIA required context role

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 2020-12-02 to 2021-01-07.

6 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 ARIA required context role 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

ChoiceAll responders
Results

Details

Responder Instructions
Detlev Fischer
Wilco Fiers
Kathy Eng
Trevor Bostic
Mary Jo Mueller
Levon Spradlin

2. Consistency with ACT Rules Format

Does the rule follow the ACT Rules Format 1.0?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 6
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
Detlev Fischer Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Trevor Bostic Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes
Levon Spradlin Yes

3. Rule assumptions

Are the assumptions acceptable?

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. 1

Details

Responder Rule assumptionsComments
Detlev Fischer I don't know. My questions are documented below. I struggle understanding Passed example 6 and Failed example 4 but I trust they are alright :)
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Trevor Bostic Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes
Levon Spradlin Yes

4. Implementation data

Is the implementation data correct?

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 or comments are documented below. 1

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

Details

Responder Implementation dataComments
Detlev Fischer I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below.
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng
Trevor Bostic Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes
Levon Spradlin Yes

5. Consistent with accessibility requirements

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

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 or comments are documented below. 2

Details

Responder Consistent with accessibility requirementsComments
Detlev Fischer Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. - Should the ARIA spec be cited as an accessibility requirement?

Trevor Bostic Yes
Mary Jo Mueller I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. Does the inconsistency in the definition of "owned element" with the ARIA spec cause concern? This is a normative definition in the ARIA spec. It would be better if the scope is to be narrowed, that would be stated in the applicability, not as a new definition.
Levon Spradlin Yes

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.
No, there are no open issues. 5

Details

Responder Remaining open issuesComments
Detlev Fischer Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. Not sure - the stated patchy support of aria-owns makes me wonder how useful thsi rule will currently be in practice.
Wilco Fiers No, there are no open issues.
Kathy Eng No, there are no open issues.
Trevor Bostic No, there are no open issues.
Mary Jo Mueller No, there are no open issues.
Levon Spradlin No, there are no open issues.

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. 1
No, I have no further questions or concerns. 5

Details

Responder Other questions or concernsComments
Detlev Fischer No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Wilco Fiers No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Kathy Eng Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. Please provide further explanation of Background: The definition of owned by used in this rule is different from the definition of "owned element" in WAI-ARIA.
- why was it necessary to create a definition?
- Seems like the WAI-ARIA "owned element" definition is broader (any DOM descendant), so failing the narrower definition of this rule would not necessarily fail 1.3.1.
- Owned Element: An 'owned element' is any DOM descendant of the element, any element specified as a child via aria-owns, or any DOM descendant of the owned child.
Trevor Bostic No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Mary Jo Mueller No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Levon Spradlin 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. 5
No, it needs the following changes.
I don't know, but I have the following concerns. 1

Details

Responder Rule is up-to-dateComments
Detlev Fischer I don't know, but I have the following concerns.
Wilco Fiers Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Kathy Eng Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Trevor Bostic Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Levon Spradlin 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.

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

Details

Responder Readiness for publishingComments
Detlev Fischer I am not sure, see comment to field 6.
Wilco Fiers Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.
Kathy Eng Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. please add why it was necessary to not use the WAI ARIA definition (#7)
Trevor Bostic Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. The change in definition of "owned element" is my main concern.
Levon Spradlin Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.

More details on responses

  • Detlev Fischer: last responded on 2, December 2020 at 18:20 (UTC)
  • Wilco Fiers: last responded on 15, December 2020 at 15:17 (UTC)
  • Kathy Eng: last responded on 16, December 2020 at 00:04 (UTC)
  • Trevor Bostic: last responded on 17, December 2020 at 13:44 (UTC)
  • Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 6, January 2021 at 22:57 (UTC)
  • Levon Spradlin: last responded on 6, January 2021 at 23:22 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Katie Haritos-Shea
  2. David MacDonald
  3. Romain Deltour
  4. Alastair Campbell
  5. Chris Loiselle
  6. Jonathan Avila
  7. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  8. Charles Adams
  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