W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: Image has non-empty 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 2020-06-01 to 2020-07-03.

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. Readiness for publishing

1. Instructions

Review the rule Image has non-empty accessible name and answer the questions in this survey. This rule has been updated due to comments documented in Issue #430 If there are issues with the rule, either open an issue in GitHub or provide details in the entry fields for the applicable question.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results

Details

Responder Instructions
Mary Jo Mueller
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð
Wilco Fiers
Detlev Fischer
Kathy Eng
Charu Pandhi

2. Consistency with ACT Rules Format

Does the rule follow the ACT Rules Format 1.0?

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. 2

Details

Responder Consistency with ACT Rules FormatComments
Mary Jo Mueller I don't know. My questions are documented below. This is the first time I focused in on this, but I'm finding it odd having the requirements mapping have references that are techniques, not WCAG SC - especially when they are also listed in the Background section. WCAG techniques themselves are not "required". Even Failure techniques are not themselves "requirements" but supporting info regarding the requirement. I notice a lot of the rules are now having techniques listed in the Requirements section, but I'd like to understand why.
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Detlev Fischer Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Charu Pandhi I don't know. My questions are documented below. Images with alt="" will pass the rule, they do not get an implicit role of none per chrome a11y tree. It just says accessibility node not exposed. Should that be clarified under Expectation?
Also, image with the title and no alt passes the rule. Can that be clarified under Expectations as well?

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
Mary Jo Mueller Yes
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Detlev Fischer Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Charu Pandhi 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. 2

Details

Responder Implementation dataComments
Mary Jo Mueller Yes
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Detlev Fischer Yes
Kathy Eng I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. Applicability: The rule applies to HTML img elements and HTML elements with the semantic role of img, except for elements that are not included in the accessibility tree.


Passed Example 6: This img element has an explicit role of presentation because of the value of the role attribute - shouldn't this be inapplicable since it's not in accessibility tree due to role=presentation?

Same for Passed Ex 5 and Passed 7
Charu Pandhi I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. alt="" does not imply role of none per https://www.w3.org/TR/html-aria/#docconformance saya no corresponding role

5. Consistent with accessibility requirements

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

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 or comments are documented below.

Details

Responder Consistent with accessibility requirementsComments
Mary Jo Mueller Yes
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Detlev Fischer Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Charu Pandhi 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.
Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. 2
No, there are no open issues. 3

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

Details

Responder Remaining open issuesComments
Mary Jo Mueller Not sure, but Issue 1165: "A significant number test files have unrelated accessibility violations" came up as an open issue for this and other rules.
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð No, there are no open issues.
Wilco Fiers Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. Issue https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1165 does not need to be resolved in my opinion.
Detlev Fischer No, there are no open issues.
Kathy Eng Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1165
Charu Pandhi 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. 5

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

Details

Responder Other questions or concernsComments
Mary Jo Mueller There are some typos:
- Need a period at the end of the sentence in the description section
- Accessibility support section, last bullet, second sentence: "does not specifies" should read "does not specify".

Another thing that is becoming increasingly noticeable to me is the size of the glossary with the addition of examples and links and all that other stuff makes the rule very long and the sections beyond it much more tedious to reach. Should we have a glossary page that includes all glossary terms and exhaustive info and then only provide the terms with a basic definition and link to that info inside of the rules? Just a thought because I think the glossary has now overcome the rest of the content in size.
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Wilco Fiers No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Detlev Fischer 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.

8. 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. 3
Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. 2
No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. 1

Details

Responder Readiness for publishingComments
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. See comments above. I don't think they're necessarily show-stoppers other than maybe the decision on whether or not to include techniques in the Requirements section.
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. Needs a bit of editorial work as pointed out by Mary Jo.
Wilco Fiers Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.
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. These conflict:

Applicability - The rule applies to HTML img elements and HTML elements with the semantic role of img, except for elements that are not included in the accessibility tree.

Expectation - Each target element has an accessible name that is not empty (""), or has a semantic role of none or presentation.
Charu Pandhi Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.

More details on responses

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.