w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: 'role' attribute has valid value
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 2020-07-01 to 2020-07-16.
5 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Instructions
- Consistency with ACT Rules Format
- Rule assumptions
- Implementation data
- Consistent with WCAG
- Remaining open issues
- Other questions or concerns
- Readiness for publishing
1. Instructions
Review the rule 'role' attribute has valid value 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
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results |
Details
| Responder | Instructions |
|---|---|
| Trevor Bostic | |
| Kathy Eng | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | |
| Wilco Fiers | |
| Charu Pandhi |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Trevor Bostic | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Charu Pandhi | Yes |
3. Rule assumptions
Are the assumptions acceptable?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes | 1 |
| No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | 1 |
| I don't know. My questions are documented below. | 3 |
Details
| Responder | Rule assumptions | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Trevor Bostic | I don't know. My questions are documented below. | The second half of the assumption that discusses an example of where an implicit role might satisfy 4.1.2, but fail this rule feels like it is more of a note. We have been trying to get rid of notes, but I am not exactly sure where this would fit. |
| Kathy Eng | I don't know. My questions are documented below. | - Assumption is confusing. It starts "This rule assumes that the implicit role of elements is not enough to satisfy Success Criterion 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value." The latter part then says correct implicit role would pass 4.1.2 when this rule fails, which makes me question whether this rule is required for 4.1.2 conformance. - Should the assumption include that a role attribute is required to satisfy 4.1.2? |
| Mary Jo Mueller | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | Rule assumptions should be written more clearly to avoid confusion. |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Charu Pandhi | I don't know. My questions are documented below. | Rule assumption can be made more clear on implicit and explicit role use. |
4. Implementation data
Is the implementation data correct?
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 or comments are documented below. |
Details
| Responder | Implementation data | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Trevor Bostic | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | Suggest adding <img src="/test-assets/shared/w3c-logo.png" alt="W3C logo" /> with no role attribute as an inapplicable example. |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Charu Pandhi | Yes |
5. Consistent with WCAG
Is the rule consistent with existing WCAG documents?
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 WCAG | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Trevor Bostic | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | Not sure this rule is required for 4.1.2 |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | Although it is worth noting there is very little about this in existing WCAG documentation. |
| Charu Pandhi | 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Trevor Bostic | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Kathy Eng | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Wilco Fiers | No, there are no open issues. | |
| 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
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. | 1 |
| No, I have no further questions or concerns. | 4 |
Details
| Responder | Other questions or concerns | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Trevor Bostic | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. | Broken links in Glossary-Semantic Role (https://act-rules.github.io/rules/674b10#semantic-role) - "Hidden state" and "marked as decorative", "explicit role" |
| Mary Jo Mueller | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Wilco Fiers | 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
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Trevor Bostic | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | Maybe editorial change to assumption. |
| Kathy Eng | No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | Clarify whether if this rule is required for 4.1.2 conformance |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | |
| Wilco Fiers | No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | This rule should not map to 4.1.2. Not every element with a role attribute is a UIC. We may need to split this rule up. |
| Charu Pandhi | Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. |
More details on responses
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