W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: Link has 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 2020-02-25 to 2020-03-10.

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 WCAG
  6. Remaining open issues
  7. Other questions or concerns
  8. Readiness for publishing

1. Instructions

Review the rule Link has accessible name 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
Jey Nandakumar
Charu Pandhi
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð
Wilco Fiers
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 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 Consistency with ACT Rules FormatComments
Jey Nandakumar Yes
Charu Pandhi Yes
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes
Wilco Fiers 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. 2
I don't know. My questions are documented below.

Details

Responder Rule assumptionsComments
Jey Nandakumar Yes
Charu Pandhi No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. Should the rule make it clear that <a> without an href does not have the semantic role of link and also maybe have an example?
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Mary Jo Mueller No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. Agree with Charu. <a> without an href isn't semantically a link and doesn't require an accessible name, as it won't be presented to AT as a link. This should be included as an "inapplicable" test case.

4. Implementation data

Is the implementation data correct?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 5
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.

Details

Responder Implementation dataComments
Jey Nandakumar Yes
Charu Pandhi No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. should the rule allow the title attribute to provide accessibile name? h33 says title should be used to supplement the link text (https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/html/H33.html)
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes

5. Consistent with WCAG

Is the rule consistent with existing WCAG documents?

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 WCAGComments
Jey Nandakumar Yes
Charu Pandhi Yes
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng 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. 2
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. 3

Details

Responder Remaining open issuesComments
Jey Nandakumar No, there are no open issues.
Charu Pandhi No, there are no open issues.
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. The rule is affected by this open issue: https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1177. Consider a case such as this:

<a role="none" href="#"></a>

The rule considers this element to have a role of "none", not "link", and will therefore not apply to it. However, the element will actually be exposed with a role of "link" and no accessible name due to presentational roles conflict resolution: https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/#conflict_resolution_presentation_none. It should therefore fail the rule.
Wilco Fiers 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/1185
Mary Jo Mueller Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. Agree with Kasper. Issue 1177 needs resolving here, as we don't want to pass elements that could potentially cause accessibility errors. Agree with Kathy that issue 1185 is not a blocker to publication, but if this rule is going back for changes, might as well fix this too.

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. 3
No, I have no further questions or concerns. 3

Details

Responder Other questions or concernsComments
Jey Nandakumar No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Charu Pandhi No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Wilco Fiers Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. I think the examples could be improved. The images do not have a valid src, which makes some of these a little questionable. Additionally I think rules where no native link is used, it would be better to ensure those element still behave as though they were links, otherwise it's somewhat questionable if 2.4.4 / 2.4.9 applies. For example, clicking them changes the page URL.
Kathy Eng Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. This rule is checking that a link has accname and not describing the link's purpose. Not a blocker, but I don't think the accessibility requirements mapping section should include these:

2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) (Level: A) - The purpose of each link can be determined from the link text alone or from the link text together with its programmatically determined link context, except where the purpose of the link would be ambiguous to users in general.
2.4.9 Link Purpose (Link Only) (Level: AAA) - A mechanism is available to allow the purpose of each link to be identified from link text alone, except where the purpose of the link would be ambiguous to users in general.
G91: Providing link text that describes the purpose of a link - The objective of this technique is to describe the purpose of a link in the text of the link.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. Agree with Wilco on his concerns. These should be fixed before publication, IMO.

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. 2
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

Details

Responder Readiness for publishingComments
Jey Nandakumar Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.
Charu Pandhi No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. Not sure if the reasons I stated above are blockers.
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. I do think we should find a solution to https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1177 before we suggest publishing this rule.
Wilco Fiers Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. Make sure the examples have actual images in them.
Kathy Eng Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. Wilco's, Charu's, and Kasper's should be addressed. I have no additional issues.

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. 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.