W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT TF Rule review: Orientation of the page is not restricted using CSS transform property

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 2020-07-06 to 2020-07-30.

4 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

The rule Orientation of the page is not restricted using CSS transform property has been updated to resolve Issue 445. Review the updated rule 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
Wilco Fiers
Kathy Eng
Trevor Bostic
Mary Jo Mueller

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.

Details

Responder Consistency with ACT Rules FormatComments
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Trevor Bostic Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes

3. Rule assumptions

Are the assumptions acceptable?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 2
No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. 1
I don't know. My questions are documented below. 1

Details

Responder Rule assumptionsComments
Wilco Fiers Yes I think we can improve the way this is formulated a little. I don't think this should be written out as a list.
Kathy Eng I don't know. My questions are documented below. The existence of any control on the page that can change the orientation on demand.

"Content does not restrict its view and operation to a single display orientation, such as portrait or landscape, unless a specific display orientation is essential."

The SC doesn't mention such a control would meet the requirement so this assumption may not be necessary.
Trevor Bostic Yes
Mary Jo Mueller No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. Not sure I understand Wilco's concern of the assumptions being written as a list. Though I don't think limitations of the rule should be listed as assumptions. I think they're making an assumption that the new rotate3d, rotateZ, and matrix3d transformation functions will make it through to the Recommendation version of the spec that's under way. I find it a little odd that things that are under development and not part of a Recommendation spec are in an ACT rule.

I have posed the question Kathy had about use of a control to adjust the orientation meeting the SC to Mike Gower and am awaiting an answer on that. It is my belief that even a bulleted sufficient technique that doesn't have a fully written out technique page is still a valid technique. It's part of the normative spec and listed as a sufficient technique.

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.

Details

Responder Implementation dataComments
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Trevor Bostic Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes

5. Consistent with WCAG

Is the rule consistent with existing WCAG documents?

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.

Details

Responder Consistent with WCAGComments
Wilco Fiers Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Trevor Bostic 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.
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. 4

Details

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

Details

Responder Other questions or concernsComments
Wilco Fiers No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Kathy Eng No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Trevor Bostic Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. The CSS3 Media Queries and Orientation links in the background section are to the same page. Orientation is just an anchor on that same page. Unsure if we care about this small duplication or not.

For the applicability, I am wondering if we could include the first note in the applicability statement instead of as a note. E.g., "... where the CSS transform property has the potential to affect the rotation of a given element. Example transformation functions include: *list of transform functions*".
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. To Trevor's points: I'm not concerned about the links, they're fine.
On the applicability, I agree with his suggestion to incorporate the note into the first paragraph of the applicability. To take care of the other note, I suggest that properties that aren't in a Recommendation spec should not be part of an official ACT Rule until that spec reaches Recommendation.

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

Details

Responder Readiness for publishingComments
Wilco Fiers Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. I think the notes from the applicability and expectation should be moved to the background section.
Kathy Eng Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.
Trevor Bostic Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. See questions and concerns.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. I like Trevor's incorporation of the first note into the applicability.
I think the new transforms in a non-recommendation spec shouldn't be included until it is done. If these are kept in, the "W3C" link should name the actual spec and give a link to it instead of linking to the generic W3C website.

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.