w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: Button has an 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 2020-02-07 to 2020-02-13.
6 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 Button has an accessible name and answer the questions in this survey.
This rule has been reviewed before and Issue 427 details the comments from the previous survey and their resolutions.
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 |
|---|---|
| Jonathan Avila | |
| Wilco Fiers | |
| Trevor Bostic | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | |
| Kathy Eng |
2. Consistency with ACT Rules Format
Does the rule follow the ACT Rules Format 1.0?
Summary
| Choice | All 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 Format | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Avila | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes |
3. Rule assumptions
Are the assumptions acceptable?
Summary
| Choice | All 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 assumptions | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Avila | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | Yes, the assumption is acceptable :) |
4. Implementation data
Is the implementation data correct?
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. | 2 |
Details
| Responder | Implementation data | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Avila | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Trevor Bostic | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | It may be worth linking to: https://www.w3.org/TR/html-aria/#docconformance in the background as a guide for implicit roles. At least for me, I didn't realize that a summary elements implicit role was button. |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | Failed example 2: This button element has no accessible name. The value attribute does not provide an accessible name for button elements, only for input elements. <button type="button" value="read more"></button> Please clarify: Value is part of accessible name comp for input type = button|submit|reset, not all input types. (https://w3c.github.io/html-aam/#input-type-button-input-type-submit-and-input-type-reset) |
5. Consistent with WCAG
Is the rule consistent with existing WCAG documents?
Summary
| Choice | All 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 WCAG | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Avila | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | 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. | 3 |
| 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. | 3 |
Details
| Responder | Remaining open issues | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Avila | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Wilco Fiers | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Trevor Bostic | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. | https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1169 |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. | Agree with Kasper's comment. Trevor's comment on #4 is related, as that document isn't super clear about the implicit role. The link Kasper provided in issue 1169 seems clearer to me. Although I'm not sure the rule can point to an editor's draft. |
| Kathy Eng | Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. | https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1169 https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1049 |
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. | 6 |
Details
| Responder | Other questions or concerns | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Avila | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Wilco Fiers | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Trevor Bostic | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Kathy Eng | 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. | 3 |
| Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | 1 |
| No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | 2 |
Details
| Responder | Readiness for publishing | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Avila | Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. | |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | Open issue must be resolved. |
| Mary Jo Mueller | No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | Resolve issue 1169. While you're making changes, consider adding the link to the mappings to show the reasoning behind making that test case inapplicable. |
| Kathy Eng | No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | Open PRs |
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
- 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