w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: Headers attribute specified to a cell refers to cells in the same table
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 2021-01-25 to 2021-02-11.
5 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Instructions
- Consistency with ACT Rules Format
- Rule assumptions
- Implementation data
- Consistent with accessibility requirements
- Remaining open issues
- Other questions or concerns
- Rule is up-to-date
- Readiness for publishing
1. Instructions
Review the rule headers attribute specified on a cell refers to cells in the same table elementg 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
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results |
Details
| Responder | Instructions |
|---|---|
| Trevor Bostic | |
| Wilco Fiers | |
| Levon Spradlin | |
| Kathy Eng | |
| Detlev Fischer |
2. Consistency with ACT Rules Format
Does the rule follow the ACT Rules Format 1.0?
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 are documented below. | 1 |
Details
| Responder | Consistency with ACT Rules Format | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Trevor Bostic | I don't know. My questions are documented below. | The note in expectation 1 seems to conflict with the description of the rule. The rule reads that the "headers attribute on a cell refers to other cells in the same table", while the note reads "headers attribute referencing elements that are non-existent or not in the table are ignored." To me this only adds confusion. Whether or not the element is ignored, if the condition stated in expectation 1 is broken the rule fails. The same goes for the note under expectation 2. Is the note possibly an accessibility support point or assumption in disguise? For example, a header reference may not exist, but if other information is present to create the relation the user may not notice.(This may already be taken care of by the current assumptions). |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Levon Spradlin | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Detlev Fischer | Yes |
3. Rule assumptions
Are the assumptions acceptable?
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 are documented below. | 1 |
Details
| Responder | Rule assumptions | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Trevor Bostic | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | I don't know. My questions are documented below. | Would like a second opinion about this. Often if proper markup is used in a table, the headers attribute is unnecessary, even if someone does the headers attribute wrong, basic th / td markup will ensure the table is still accessible. It seems like this could cause false positives. On the other hand, I've never seen this cause problems, and we've had a rule like this for years now. |
| Levon Spradlin | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Detlev Fischer | Yes |
4. Implementation data
Is the implementation data correct?
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. |
Details
| Responder | Implementation data | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Trevor Bostic | Yes | From inapplicable example 4, will there be a rule on non-semantic tables? |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Levon Spradlin | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Detlev Fischer | Yes |
5. Consistent with accessibility requirements
Is the rule consistent with existing accessibility standards (e.g. WCAG, ARIA, etc.)?
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. | 1 |
Details
| Responder | Consistent with accessibility requirements | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Trevor Bostic | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Levon Spradlin | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | This rule seems to be the algorithm for assigning header cells (https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/tables.html#algorithm-for-assigning-header-cells). Do we need an ACT Rule for an algorithm? A Rule that evaluates the assigned header cells would be good. Perhaps "Table cell is assigned one or more header cells", with the same assumptions from this rule (required to express the relationship between data and table header cells) |
| Detlev Fischer | 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. | |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Trevor Bostic | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Wilco Fiers | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Levon Spradlin | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Kathy Eng | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Detlev Fischer | Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. | I would have appreciated a failed example with two separate tables (e.g. to ensure a non.scrolling header) where the headers attribute in the escond table points to th cells in the first table. |
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. | 2 |
| No, I have no further questions or concerns. | 3 |
Details
| Responder | Other questions or concerns | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Trevor Bostic | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. | Failed example 1 and 2 are examples where the assumption applies. because proper th / td markup is used, the fallback should kick in and these tables should not cause problems. |
| Levon Spradlin | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Kathy Eng | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Detlev Fischer | Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. | See point 6. |
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
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes, all information is up-to-date. | 4 |
| No, it needs the following changes. | 1 |
| I don't know, but I have the following concerns. |
Details
| Responder | Rule is up-to-date | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Trevor Bostic | Yes, all information is up-to-date. | |
| Wilco Fiers | No, it needs the following changes. | I think the notes in the expectation should be taken out. We could instead add a few sentences to the background section explaining that unless the headers attribute references another cell in the same table, the reference will be ignored by assistive technologies. |
| Levon Spradlin | Yes, all information is up-to-date. | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes, all information is up-to-date. | |
| Detlev Fischer | Yes, all information is up-to-date. |
9. 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. | |
| Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | 2 |
| No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | 3 |
Details
| Responder | Readiness for publishing | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Trevor Bostic | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | I think the notes in the expectation should be removed. |
| Wilco Fiers | No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | Needs the above changes. It's fairly minor so I don't mind if this rule goes directly to CFC after this is done. |
| Levon Spradlin | No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | I agree with Wilco that if the fallback on native HTML cell and header code overrides the incorrect ID, I believe this should pass. |
| Kathy Eng | No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | Not sure this rule is necessary. |
| Detlev Fischer | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | Consider adding a two tables case under "Failed" (not sure whether this still a common case though, so this is not a blocker! |
More details on responses
- Trevor Bostic: last responded on 4, February 2021 at 13:34 (UTC)
- Wilco Fiers: last responded on 9, February 2021 at 10:10 (UTC)
- Levon Spradlin: last responded on 10, February 2021 at 22:54 (UTC)
- Kathy Eng: last responded on 11, February 2021 at 00:28 (UTC)
- Detlev Fischer: last responded on 11, February 2021 at 10:51 (UTC)
Non-responders
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
- Katie Haritos-Shea
- David MacDonald
- Romain Deltour
- Alastair Campbell
- Mary Jo Mueller
- 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
- 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
