w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: Form control has 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 2020-01-22 to 2020-02-05.
6 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Instructions
- Consistency with ACT Rules Format
- Rule assumptions
- Implementation data
- Consistent with WCAG
- Remaining open issues
- Other questions or concerns
- Readiness for publishing
1. Instructions
Review the rule Form control has accessible name and answer the questions in this survey.
If there are issues with the rule, please open an issue in GitHub or provide details in the entry fields for the applicable question.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results |
Details
| Responder | Instructions |
|---|---|
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | |
| Wilco Fiers | |
| David MacDonald | |
| Kathy Eng | |
| Charu Pandhi | |
| Trevor Bostic |
2. Consistency with ACT Rules Format
Does the rule follow the ACT Rules Format 1.0?
Summary
| Choice | All 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 Format | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| David MacDonald | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Charu Pandhi | Yes | |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes |
3. Rule assumptions
Are the assumptions acceptable?
Summary
| Choice | All 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 assumptions | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| David MacDonald | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Charu Pandhi | I don't know. My questions are documented below. | Will there be a separate rule for 3.3.2: Labels or Instructions? cuz form can have an accessible name and can still fail 3.3.2 for e.g. with aria-label. Should we make that clear? |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes |
4. Implementation data
Is the implementation data correct?
Summary
| Choice | All 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 | Implementation data | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| David MacDonald | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | 1. For Trusted Tester, Pass Example 2 would be inapplicable because it is disabled. Disabled input elements do not receive keyboard focus, cannot be selected, and cannot be modified. 2. Did not find form elements for examples with explicit roles (Pass 5, Fail 3,4,5,6) so TT results would be inapplicable. |
| Charu Pandhi | Yes | |
| Trevor Bostic | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | I would suggest making failed examples 3 and 4 use input examples. The div + role combo just adds confusion I think. |
5. Consistent with WCAG
Is the rule consistent with existing WCAG documents?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes | 5 |
| 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 | Consistent with WCAG | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| David MacDonald | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | Wondering about this <input aria-label="last name" disabled /> Should this also pass <input aria-label="" disabled /> OR this <input disabled /> I'm thinking that a disabled control wouldn't need an accessible name unless that name was visually presented in which case it would be 1.3.1... but I'm open to discussing this. I've seen examples of an offscreen <select> which was used by javascript to feed values into a quantity <span> which seemed to work OK with AT. <button aria-label="decrease quantity by 1"> - </button><span id='dynamic-from-select'>Quantity 2</span><button aria-label="Increase quantity by 1> + </button> (offscreen) <select disabled> <option>1</option> <option>2</option> ...</select> |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Charu Pandhi | Yes | |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes |
6. Remaining open issues
Are there any remaining open issues for this rule that were opened prior to this review?
Summary
| Choice | All 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. | 1 |
| No, there are no open issues. | 4 |
Details
| Responder | Remaining open issues | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. | https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/826 |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. | There's an issue open for combobox: https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/826 The ARIA working group has proposed a fix to combobox, which means it will required an accessible name. I don't think this needs to be resolved. |
| David MacDonald | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Kathy Eng | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Charu Pandhi | No, there are no open issues. | |
| 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
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. | |
| No, I have no further questions or concerns. | 6 |
Details
| Responder | Other questions or concerns | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Wilco Fiers | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| David MacDonald | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Kathy Eng | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Charu Pandhi | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| 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
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. | 2 |
| Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | 4 |
| No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. |
Details
| Responder | Readiness for publishing | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | The remaining issue needs to be resolved. |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | - The second note in applicability says: > This means WCAG 2.1 does not require it to have an accessible name. I'm not convinced this is true anymore. An argument can be made that the "value" part of "Name, role, value" requires that options have an accessible name. I'm OK leaving that ouf ot the rule, but this sentence should probably be removed. - Passed example 2 would be improved by adding a visible label as well - Passed example 3 would be improved by adding one or two non-empty options - Passed example 6 may pass the rule but it does not satisfy the success criterion. It would be better to remove it. - Failed example 7 seems unnecessary. Could potentially be removed - Inapplicable example 2, 3 and 4 are still focusable, and arguably might still fail SC 4.1.2. They should be disabled |
| David MacDonald | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | As per my question above. |
| Kathy Eng | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | test case questions #4 |
| Charu Pandhi | Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. | |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. |
More details on responses
Non-responders
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
- Katie Haritos-Shea
- Romain Deltour
- Alastair Campbell
- Mary Jo Mueller
- Detlev Fischer
- Chris Loiselle
- Jonathan Avila
- Rachael Bradley Montgomery
- Charles Adams
- Daniel Montalvo
- Helen Burge
- Todd Libby
- Thomas Brunet
- Catherine Droege
- Suji Sreerama
- Shane Dittmar
- Nayan Padrai
- Sage Keriazes
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