w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: Text has minimum contrast
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 2020-10-14 to 2020-10-29.
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 Text has minimum contrast which was updated due to Issue 485. Then 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 |
|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | |
| Levon Spradlin | |
| Kathy Eng | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | |
| Trevor Bostic |
2. Consistency with ACT Rules Format
Does the rule follow the ACT Rules Format 1.0?
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 are documented below. |
Details
| Responder | Consistency with ACT Rules Format | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Levon Spradlin | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes | |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes |
3. Rule assumptions
Are the assumptions acceptable?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes | 3 |
| 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 | Rule assumptions | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Levon Spradlin | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | I don't know. My questions are documented below. | 1.4.6 is not mentioned |
| Mary Jo Mueller | I don't know. My questions are documented below. | The assumptions are actually the same for both 1.4.3 AND 1.4.6, so I don't think that the specific criterion of 1.4.3 needs to be called out. |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes |
4. Implementation data
Is the implementation data correct?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes | |
| 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. | 4 |
Details
| Responder | Implementation data | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | We need to get at least 1 complete implementation. This rule will need to go on hold until we do. |
| Levon Spradlin | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | I'm not sure what implementation data is lacking. |
| Kathy Eng | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | Because 1.4.3 is AA and 1.4.6 is AAA, the implementations would be clearer if these to be 2 separate rules. Combining both in this rule may cause confusion on the passed implementations for readers (probably not for automated tools) since some fail 1.4.6. Similar situation exists for 1.2.3 (A), 1.2.5 (AA), and 1.2.8 (AAA). Combining all of these would be very confusing and this rule seems to set a precedence for combining them. |
| Mary Jo Mueller | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | Data looks correct, but so far we don't have any full implementations which blocks the rule from progressing through the process. There are some untested rules for SortSite and their tool passed Failed example 6. QualWeb also had a few inconsistent results, including Failed example 6. Is the shadow DOM something that automated tools cannot test? Or do these tools need updates to get the anticipated results? |
| Trevor Bostic | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | For inapplicable example 3, is there a reason to have the "aria-hidden='true'" attribute included? I think it confuses the point. I wonder if it would also be more clear if the description referenced the assumption as to why this counts as inapplicable. I am almost certain we had this discussion but I can't remember the reasoning. Why do we not consider text nodes that have ancestors with widget roles? |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Levon Spradlin | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | Expectation only describes 1.4.3. Consider a separate rule for 1.4.6. |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes | I'm assuming that this would be one atomic rule for 1.4.6 and another atomic rule would check the more stringent requirement in 1.4.6 - which renders mapping of 1.4.6 to this rule a bit moot. Why have 2 rules for 1.4.6 when you can have one? |
| Trevor Bostic | 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. | |
| No, there are no open issues. | 5 |
Details
| Responder | Remaining open issues | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Levon Spradlin | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Kathy Eng | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Trevor Bostic | No, there are no open issues. |
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. | |
| No, I have no further questions or concerns. | 5 |
Details
| Responder | Other questions or concerns | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Levon Spradlin | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Kathy Eng | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Trevor Bostic | 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
| Choice | All 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-date | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | Yes, all information is up-to-date. | |
| Levon Spradlin | 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. | |
| Trevor Bostic | 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. | 1 |
| 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 publishing | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | As soon as we have an implementation. |
| Levon Spradlin | Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. | |
| Kathy Eng | No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | Separate rules for the 2 SCs because they require different minimums. |
| Mary Jo Mueller | No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | I agree with both Wilco and Kathy. We don't have full implementation by any tool. It also is simply odd to make this apply to 1.4.6 when that is more stringent and would require another rule to fully test it, though failing 1.4.3 does also fail 1.4.6, so I do understand where this is coming from. I won't fall on my sword for that, but it should be made clear in the rule that the assumption is there's another rule to fully test 1.4.6's more stringent requirements. |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | Maybe change to inapplicable example 3, not a blocker |
More details on responses
- Wilco Fiers: last responded on 14, October 2020 at 10:15 (UTC)
- Levon Spradlin: last responded on 28, October 2020 at 17:46 (UTC)
- Kathy Eng: last responded on 28, October 2020 at 19:04 (UTC)
- Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 28, October 2020 at 21:19 (UTC)
- Trevor Bostic: last responded on 29, October 2020 at 13:47 (UTC)
Non-responders
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
- Katie Haritos-Shea
- David MacDonald
- Romain Deltour
- Alastair Campbell
- Detlev Fischer
- 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
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