W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: ARIA state or property is permitted

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 2020-05-14 to 2020-05-21.

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 WCAG
  6. Remaining open issues
  7. Other questions or concerns
  8. Readiness for publishing

1. Instructions

Review the rule ARIA state or property is permitted 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
Wilco Fiers
Charu Pandhi
Kathy Eng
Mary Jo Mueller
Trevor Bostic

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
Wilco Fiers Yes
Charu Pandhi Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes
Trevor Bostic 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.

Details

Responder Rule assumptionsComments
Wilco Fiers Yes
Charu Pandhi Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes Editorial: Add a period at the end of the sentence.
Trevor Bostic 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

Details

Responder Implementation dataComments
Wilco Fiers Yes
Charu Pandhi Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes
Trevor Bostic I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. Could we be more specific that passed examples 7 and 8 are applicable for this rule since it checks for *existence* instead of the value? I find just saying it is applicable is a bit vague.

5. Consistent with WCAG

Is the rule consistent with existing WCAG documents?

Summary

ChoiceAll 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 WCAGComments
Wilco Fiers No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. There is no WCAG documentation on this.
Charu Pandhi Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Mary Jo Mueller I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. The rule doesn't state the use of the test for potentially failing 4.1.2 Role, State, Value in the requirements mapping section - would be used as part of Situation D. If you fail this rule would you also fail 4.1.1 Parsing? Just trying to understand why these are listed under "Related info" rather than the rules mapping section.
Trevor Bostic 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. 2
Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. 1
No, there are no open issues. 2

Details

Responder Remaining open issuesComments
Wilco Fiers Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. I created this PR, hopefully this can be merged before this survey closes:
https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1313
Charu Pandhi Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published.
Kathy Eng No, there are no open issues.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. The pull request from Wilco looks like it's been reviewed and approved and is ready to merge. So might as well do that.
Trevor Bostic 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. 2
No, I have no further questions or concerns. 3

Details

Responder Other questions or concernsComments
Wilco Fiers No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Charu Pandhi Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. The rule name can be made more clear by adding the word "attribute" - ARIA state or property attribute is permitted. That way it is clear it is not the attribute value.
Kathy Eng No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. The examples say that aria-label is a "state" but it is a "property". https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.2/#aria-label (Examples 4 & 9). There are states missing from the test cases that are supported in ARIA: aria-disabled, aria-expanded, aria-invalid, and aria-selected. Also wondering why a multitude of other properties are not tested: aria-atomic, aria-autocomplete, aria-dropeffect, aria-errormessage, aria-flowto, aria-haspopup, aria-live, aria-modal, aria-multiline, aria-multiselectable, aria-owns, aria-placeholder, aria-readonly, aria-relevant, and aria-required. Maybe it's that I can't easily tell what attributes are for providing a value vs. simply a property of the element, as they are all listed as properties in the ARIA spec, along with several others that perhaps one could argue are to provide a value (e.g. aria-rowcount, aria-rowindex, etc.). There is a typo in Pass Example 4: 'role' should be 'roles'.
Trevor Bostic No, I have no further questions or concerns.

8. 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. 1
No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. 1

Details

Responder Readiness for publishingComments
Wilco Fiers Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1313
Charu Pandhi Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.
Kathy Eng Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.
Mary Jo Mueller No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. If my comments in 7 above about aria-label and the other ARIA properties are true issues, they should be fixed.
Trevor Bostic Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.

More details on responses

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Katie Haritos-Shea
  2. David MacDonald
  3. Romain Deltour
  4. Alastair Campbell
  5. Detlev Fischer
  6. Chris Loiselle
  7. Jonathan Avila
  8. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  9. Charles Adams
  10. Daniel Montalvo
  11. Helen Burge
  12. Todd Libby
  13. Thomas Brunet
  14. Catherine Droege
  15. Suji Sreerama
  16. Shane Dittmar
  17. Nayan Padrai
  18. Sage Keriazes
  19. 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.