W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: Audio or video that plays automatically has no audio that lasts more than 3 seconds

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 2020-10-07 to 2020-10-29.

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 Audio or video that plays automatically has no audio that lasts more than 3 seconds and answer the questions in this survey.

Note: This is an atomic rule for the composite rule: 'Audio' or 'video' avoids automatically playing audio.

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
Trevor Bostic
Levon Spradlin
Kathy Eng
Charu Pandhi
Mary Jo Mueller

2. Consistency with ACT Rules Format

Does the rule follow the ACT Rules Format 1.0?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 2
No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. 2
I don't know. My questions are documented below. 2

Details

Responder Consistency with ACT Rules FormatComments
Wilco Fiers Yes
Trevor Bostic No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. I think the applicability that the duration is >3 seconds is in direct contrast with what this rule is testing. I think this part of the applicability can be removed.
Levon Spradlin I don't know. My questions are documented below. I'm confused by the difference in intent between this rule and 1.4.2, whether media that plays without audio in the background after 3 seconds is acceptable for a user who cannot see the screen.
Kathy Eng Yes
Charu Pandhi No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. Duration part of the applicability conflicts with the rule description and implementation data. If the applicability is audio >3 seconds then should the expectation should have a control mechanism?
Mary Jo Mueller I don't know. My questions are documented below. I agree with Trevor. "Lasting more than 3 seconds" should be removed, as that is what the rule is testing for. IMO, you need to test all media resources to see if they have audio and then check if it lasts more than 3 seconds to fail the rule. Potentially "and that contains audio" should also be removed, depending on the actual test.

3. Rule assumptions

Are the assumptions acceptable?

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 Rule assumptionsComments
Wilco Fiers Yes
Trevor Bostic Yes
Levon Spradlin Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Charu Pandhi Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes Please add missing "." at the end of the sentence.

4. Implementation data

Is the implementation data correct?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 2
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. 3

Details

Responder Implementation dataComments
Wilco Fiers I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. There are some cantTells, so that would suggest this is insufficient for us to approve publication. SortSite does have a complete implementation of the composite rule. We could consider allowing it for that reason. Needs discussion.
Trevor Bostic Yes
Levon Spradlin Yes
Kathy Eng I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. If the applicability is to media that is longer than 3 secs, Passed 1 and 2 would be inapplicable.
Charu Pandhi No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. Duration part of the applicability conflicts with the Passed example 1 and 2
Mary Jo Mueller I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. The 4/7 can't tell results means this rule is stalled waiting for an implementation.

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. 1

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

Details

Responder Consistent with accessibility requirementsComments
Wilco Fiers Yes
Trevor Bostic Yes
Levon Spradlin I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. Confusion from #2 regarding 1.4.2
Kathy Eng Yes it's consistent to a technique, not a SC.
Charu Pandhi should this map to 1.4.2 SC?
Mary Jo Mueller Yes In reference to others' comments - from the ACT Rules Format 1.0: If the rule does not map to any accessibility requirement, the accessibility requirement mapping will only contain the explainer that it is not required for conformance to the accessibility requirements document. This is common with atomic rules used in composite rules. Since this rule cannot test for conformance alone, all it needs is the explainer of the situation in the Accessibility Requirements Mapping.

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.
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. 6

Details

Responder Remaining open issuesComments
Wilco Fiers No, there are no open issues.
Trevor Bostic No, there are no open issues.
Levon Spradlin No, there are no open issues.
Kathy Eng No, there are no open issues.
Charu Pandhi No, there are no open issues.
Mary Jo Mueller 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.
No, I have no further questions or concerns. 6

Details

Responder Other questions or concernsComments
Wilco Fiers No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Trevor Bostic No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Levon Spradlin No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Kathy Eng No, I have no further questions or concerns. In the Expectation: "This rule does not cover single audio instances that play repeatedly for more than three seconds, or multiple audio instances for more than three seconds."

Is this audio instances that are shorter than 3 seconds played in a loop so it's say, 2 seconds replayed for 10 seconds?

Charu Pandhi No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Mary Jo Mueller 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. 6
No, it needs the following changes.
I don't know, but I have the following concerns.

Details

Responder Rule is up-to-dateComments
Wilco Fiers Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Trevor Bostic Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Levon Spradlin Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Kathy Eng Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Charu Pandhi Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Mary Jo Mueller 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. 1
Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. 3
No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. 1

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

Details

Responder Readiness for publishingComments
Wilco Fiers Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. I think so, assuming we're OK with SortSite as having the implementation for this.
Trevor Bostic Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. After modifying applicability to remove duration.
Levon Spradlin Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes.
Kathy Eng No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. primarily, the passed examples conflict with applicability
Charu Pandhi Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. See comments above
Mary Jo Mueller Seems that the lack of full implementation could stop this rule. There's also the issue that the applicability is only to media lasting more than 3 seconds which is supposed to be what this rule is testing. Shouldn't it apply to all media with audio?

More details on responses

  • Wilco Fiers: last responded on 14, October 2020 at 10:57 (UTC)
  • Trevor Bostic: last responded on 15, October 2020 at 12:55 (UTC)
  • Levon Spradlin: last responded on 16, October 2020 at 20:56 (UTC)
  • Kathy Eng: last responded on 22, October 2020 at 22:26 (UTC)
  • Charu Pandhi: last responded on 28, October 2020 at 22:35 (UTC)
  • Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 29, October 2020 at 12:21 (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. 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

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.