W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: 'audio' or 'video' avoids automatically playing audio

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 2020-10-06 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

The rule audio or video avoids automatically playing audio was updated to resolve Issue 456. Review the updated rule 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
Trevor Bostic
Wilco Fiers
Kathy Eng
Daniel Montalvo
Levon Spradlin
Mary Jo Mueller

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. 1

Details

Responder Consistency with ACT Rules FormatComments
Trevor Bostic I don't know. My questions are documented below. I think duration needs to be removed from the applicability. Of the input rules, one essentially handles <3 seconds and the other handles > 3 seconds, saying all videos are > 3 seconds essentially only makes the second rule apply.
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Daniel Montalvo Yes
Levon Spradlin Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes

3. Rule assumptions

Are the assumptions acceptable?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 4
No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. 1
I don't know. My questions are documented below. 1

Details

Responder Rule assumptionsComments
Trevor Bostic Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng I don't know. My questions are documented below. first assumption: This rule assumes that it is not possible to satisfy Success Criterion 1.4.2 Audio Control if the total length of the automatically playing audio is more than 3 seconds, even if there are pauses in the sound and no more than 3 seconds in a row with actual sound. - "not possible to satisfy" is troublesome because it is possible as described by the next assumption bullets. This may be changing the intent of the original sentence but suggest changing to - This rule assumes that the rule applies to all automatically playing video that is more than 3 seconds, even if there are pauses in the sound and no more than 3 seconds in a row with actual sound.
Daniel Montalvo Yes Just minor typo in the composite, assumptions, second bullet "Screen readers users" I would drop the 's' from "readers".

Comment:
In the assumptions we use the term "mechanisms" `as defined by WCAG, and in the examples we use "instruments". I think I see the point that we use mechanisms in the assumptions because we want to stick to WCAG terminology as much as we can, and then we use "instruments" in the examples because we have an ad hoc definition we are sure we can adhere to for the examples. But just checking if this was the intent.
Levon Spradlin Yes
Mary Jo Mueller No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. I think the first assumption should be deleted. It assumes all of the videos that are applicable to this rule will fail. The third assumption also says that the mechanism can be hidden to some users and still pass this criteria, but that would fail WCAG. So to me having a partially accessible mechanism to pause or stop the audio wouldn't really meet the 1.4.2 criteria. IMO this SC isn't just about screen reader users, it also includes persons with cognitive disabilities who find such autoplaying content distracting.

4. Implementation data

Is the implementation data correct?

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. 2

Details

Responder Implementation dataComments
Trevor Bostic No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. Custom controls video 'play/pause' button shows play even when the video is autoplaying instead of the expected 'pause' to stop the video.
Wilco Fiers I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. The data isn't 100% consistent. Given this is because of technical issues, and I do not believe there is anything in the missing test data that would cause issues, I am personally satisfied with the amount of data there is.
Kathy Eng I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. With mechanism assumptions, is it necessary to use "instrument"?

Suggest splitting Passed Ex 1 into two separate examples: one for pause/stop and one for volume control

Splitting hairs but Passed Ex 2, which does not play for longer than 3 secs, would be not applicable for 1.4.2, not pass.
Daniel Montalvo Yes
Levon Spradlin Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes According to the reports, SortSite has a full implementation.

5. Consistent with accessibility requirements

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

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 or comments are documented below. 1

Details

Responder Consistent with accessibility requirementsComments
Trevor Bostic Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. WCAG Non-interference is listed as "Not required to conformance to any W3C accessibility recommendation." but https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/conformance, under Understanding Conformance Requirements, "There are five requirements that must be met in order for content to be classified as 'conforming' to WCAG 2.0." Non-interference is Requirement 5.
Daniel Montalvo Yes
Levon Spradlin Yes
Mary Jo Mueller 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
Trevor Bostic No, there are no open issues.
Wilco Fiers No, there are no open issues.
Kathy Eng No, there are no open issues.
Daniel Montalvo Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. Last week's discussions left a couple of issues to work on.
Levon Spradlin 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. 2
No, I have no further questions or concerns. 4

Details

Responder Other questions or concernsComments
Trevor Bostic No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Wilco Fiers Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. It seems to me this rule can be done in one of two ways. Either as a composite rule like is now, but then the "3 second" thing in the applicability is unnecessary, or we could have just a single atomic rule that maps directly to 1.4.2, by putting the 3 second audio exception into the applicability. I personally would prefer that solution. It seems cleaner to me, but I'd be okay with either solution.
Kathy Eng Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. One of the Expectations is that the target passes Audio Or Video That Plays Automatically Has No Audio That Lasts More Than 3 Seconds. 1.4.2 only applies to audio that lasts for more than 3 seconds, so [...] no audio that lasts more than 3 seconds would be inapplicable, not pass.

Daniel Montalvo No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Levon Spradlin 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
Trevor Bostic Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Wilco Fiers Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Kathy Eng Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Daniel Montalvo Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Levon Spradlin 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. 2
Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. 2
No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. 2

Details

Responder Readiness for publishingComments
Trevor Bostic No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. Needs the changes above.
Wilco Fiers Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. Assuming SortSite's implementation is meets our prerequisites for a complete implementation.
Kathy Eng Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. WCAG non-conformance and assumption bullet 1 update
Daniel Montalvo No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. Applicability needs to be worked on based on last week's discussions.
Levon Spradlin Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. It needs the applicability updated.

More details on responses

  • Trevor Bostic: last responded on 15, October 2020 at 13:00 (UTC)
  • Wilco Fiers: last responded on 16, October 2020 at 12:44 (UTC)
  • Kathy Eng: last responded on 22, October 2020 at 01:11 (UTC)
  • Daniel Montalvo: last responded on 22, October 2020 at 12:54 (UTC)
  • Levon Spradlin: last responded on 28, October 2020 at 17:53 (UTC)
  • Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 29, October 2020 at 13:03 (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. Helen Burge
  11. Todd Libby
  12. Thomas Brunet
  13. Catherine Droege
  14. Suji Sreerama
  15. Shane Dittmar
  16. Nayan Padrai
  17. 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.