W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: Element marked as decorative is not exposed

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 2020-11-11 to 2020-12-03.

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 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 Element marked as decorative is not exposed 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
Detlev Fischer
Kathy Eng
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.

Details

Responder Consistency with ACT Rules FormatComments
Trevor Bostic Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Detlev Fischer Yes
Kathy Eng 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.
I don't know. My questions are documented below.

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

Details

Responder Rule assumptionsComments
Trevor Bostic Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Detlev Fischer Yes
Kathy Eng
Mary Jo Mueller 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
Trevor Bostic Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Detlev Fischer Yes
Kathy Eng I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. - Passed Ex 4 (https://act-rules.github.io/rules/46ca7f#passed-example-4) - why does it have semantic role of none?

- Failed Ex 2 (https://act-rules.github.io/rules/46ca7f#failed-example-2) - I found this to be confusing because the image path is broken. The W3C logo image should be visible. It's meaningful and has an accessible name from the aria-labelledby. It should not have been marked decorative.

Mary Jo Mueller Yes

5. Consistent with accessibility requirements

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

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 or comments are documented below. 1

Details

Responder Consistent with accessibility requirementsComments
Trevor Bostic I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. This doesn't map to any requirements. Should it be placed in a similar bucket to the aria-* attribute is defined in WAI-ARIA rule, where it is on the back burner for now?
Wilco Fiers No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. Rule doesn't map to WCAG. We probably shouldn't have opened a survey on this.
Detlev Fischer Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Mary Jo Mueller No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. Seems this is more of a user agent test, not a WCAG conformance test.

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. 5

Details

Responder Remaining open issuesComments
Trevor Bostic No, there are no open issues.
Wilco Fiers No, there are no open issues.
Detlev Fischer No, there are no open issues.
Kathy Eng 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. 2

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

Details

Responder Other questions or concernsComments
Trevor Bostic Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. Could the applicability be made to exclude text content so that this rule does map to 1.1.1? Or would that cause it to overlap too much with other rules? I am having a little trouble completely understanding this rules standing in regards to our other rules; it feels like some of these test cases may be covered by other rules.
Wilco Fiers No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Detlev Fischer No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Kathy Eng Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. - Can the applicability be changed so 1.1.1 can be the accessibility requirement? Change to: The rule applies to decorative non-text content (replacing "any element") which is marked as decorative. Or, possibly, applies when presentational role conflicts exist for decorative non-text content.

This would address this comment in Background: When these conflicts arise on decorative non-text content, this is also a failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1: Non-text Content because decorative non-text content must be implemented in a way that allows assistive technologies to ignore it. When these conflicts arise on text content, or on content which is not decorative, this is not a failure of WCAG. Therefore this rule is not mapping to any specific WCAG Success Criterion, and is not an accessibility requirement for WCAG.

Mary Jo Mueller I have the same question as Trevor. There could potentially be an aspect of this that is meaningful as an atomic rule for 1.1.1 to check for images that don't have alt text to see if they are marked as decorative.

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. 5
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.
Detlev Fischer Yes, all information is up-to-date.
Kathy Eng 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.
No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. 4

Details

Responder Readiness for publishingComments
Trevor Bostic No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. Possibly because it is not mapping to requirements, I am also not sure it aligns well with other rules.
Wilco Fiers No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. Rule doesn't map to any W3C accessibility requirement.
Detlev Fischer Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.
Kathy Eng No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. This rule seems to conflict with WAI guidance for decorative images (https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/decorative/) that alt="" is adequate to indicate that it should be ignored by AT. Would <img src="line.png" alt=""> be a failed example?


Mary Jo Mueller No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. Same reason as others. In its current form, this rule doesn't map to WCAG conformance requirements and is more of a user agent test to make sure they are correctly handling decorative content.

More details on responses

  • Trevor Bostic: last responded on 19, November 2020 at 13:54 (UTC)
  • Wilco Fiers: last responded on 25, November 2020 at 13:55 (UTC)
  • Detlev Fischer: last responded on 2, December 2020 at 18:05 (UTC)
  • Kathy Eng: last responded on 3, December 2020 at 00:04 (UTC)
  • Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 3, December 2020 at 13:53 (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. Chris Loiselle
  6. Jonathan Avila
  7. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  8. Charles Adams
  9. Daniel Montalvo
  10. Helen Burge
  11. Todd Libby
  12. Thomas Brunet
  13. Catherine Droege
  14. Suji Sreerama
  15. Shane Dittmar
  16. Nayan Padrai
  17. Sage Keriazes
  18. 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.