w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: HTML page has a title
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 2019-08-06 to 2019-08-08.
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 HTML page has a title 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 |
|---|---|
| Mary Jo Mueller | |
| Wilco Fiers | |
| Kathy Eng | |
| Anne Thyme Nørregaard | |
| Maureen Kraft | |
| Charu Pandhi |
2. Consistency with ACT Rules Format
Does the rule follow the ACT Rules Format 1.0?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes | 3 |
| No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | 2 |
| I don't know. My questions are documented below. | 1 |
Details
| Responder | Consistency with ACT Rules Format | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mary Jo Mueller | I don't know. My questions are documented below. | The content for each field is consistent with the rules format, but not necessarily the heading titles and order of the fields. I have rule template comments, documented below. There's also additional sections not included in the ACT Rules Format that I'm not sure should be a part of the rule itself (e.g. Implementations section). - It actually took me a while to determine there was a description, as this rule has just a single sentence that comes after a very fine line separator with very little contrast so I didn't notice it for a while. Scanning through the rule to identify the parts, I was thinking it was part of the input aspects content. Also it didn't come right after the rule identifier (since I was checking all the pieces were there by sequentially going through the list in the ACT Rules format spec). I suggest (assuming the order of things doesn't have to match the spec) the description go above all of the metadata about the rule - right after the rule title. Then the user can read what the rule is about before getting into the details. - The "Glossary" is referred to as "Referenced Glossary". I think "Glossary" is sufficient. - Do the parts of the rule need to appear in the same order as documented in the ACT Rules Format 1.0? Currently the rule's parts are in a different order. e.g. ACT Rules lists the Rule Type as the 4th item, and this rule lists the Rule Type 2nd. |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Anne Thyme Nørregaard | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | The ACT Rules Format states that the applicability has to be unambiguous. This rule uses the undefined term "page" in the applicability. I think this is an issue. The rule https://act-rules.github.io/rules/c4a8a4 gets around it by using the defined term "document" instead. |
| Maureen Kraft | Yes | I don't have an issue with the content, however, the page is not accessible for me running in Safari. I have issues scrolling the page and navigating to the elements on the page. |
| Charu Pandhi | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | 1 - The applicability of the rule to a page is not clear, something like HTML / XHTML document would be more clear. 2 - the title of the document should be in the head section of the document, meaning allowed parent is <head> or if it OK to not have it the head section then this should be listed as an assumption 3 - there should be only one title element for the document, it can have one or more title attributes (as is widely accepted) or should be documented in the assumptions |
3. Rule assumptions
Are the assumptions acceptable?
Summary
| Choice | All 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 assumptions | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Anne Thyme Nørregaard | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | I think two assumptions are missing: There is an implicit assumption made that it is okay that `title` elements are not placed in the `head` of the document, which they should be according to the HTML spec. The reason for allowing this is that testing showed that modern browsers don't care where the `title` element is located. This was however a big discussion item because it goes against what many considers to be the correct way of testing for this SC, so it would make sense to document it in Assumptions instead of just creating passing test cases for the scenario. There is also an implicit assumption that it is okay to have multiple `title` elements, which is also not currently widely accepted across accessibility testers. If these are not assumptions, I think they at least have to be documented as notes in the expectations. |
| Maureen Kraft | Yes | No assumptions made. |
| Charu Pandhi | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | See my comments for section 2 |
4. Implementation data
Is the implementation data correct?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes | 2 |
| 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. | 4 |
Details
| Responder | Implementation data | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mary Jo Mueller | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | My question is whether it is misleading to include implementations that do not achieve the correct results for all of the test cases? Should there be some indication inside the rule the actual status of the implementation - whether the expected test results were 100% correct. Otherwise it seems that you have to keep linking through to individually listed implementations to find out their test yields incorrect or different results. e.g. Axe-core gives "untested" rather than "inapplicable" and RGAA 3.0 yields "passed" results for some failure test cases and for the "inapplicable" test case. |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | RGAA passed the last 3 failed/inapplicable test cases. |
| Anne Thyme Nørregaard | Yes | |
| Maureen Kraft | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | Do you mean test cases or Implementations? |
| Charu Pandhi | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | As per comments in section 2 the pass / fail / inapplicable will change |
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. | 1 |
| I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | 1 |
Details
| Responder | Consistent with WCAG | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mary Jo Mueller | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | While I understand the WCAG sufficient techniques and failure techniques are not comprehensive to cover every case, I find it interesting that techniques about iframe titles are not included/referenced as a sufficient technique for SC 2.4.2 Page Titled. Is this something Screen Readers and browsers generally support to use as a page title, so it winds up added in this rule? If so, perhaps WCAG should add that as another sufficient technique. Also, what happens if there are multiple iframes on a page? If the first iframe's title is blank is it a fail? |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | (as far as I know) |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/html/H25.html specifies that "that a non-empty title element appears in the head section." |
| Anne Thyme Nørregaard | Yes | |
| Maureen Kraft | Yes | |
| Charu Pandhi | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | as per WCAG 2.1 >> a non-empty title element appears in the head section. |
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. | 1 |
| 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. | 4 |
Details
| Responder | Remaining open issues | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mary Jo Mueller | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Wilco Fiers | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Kathy Eng | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Anne Thyme Nørregaard | Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. | I have previously commented on an issue that has to do with naming conventions, specifically about the naming of this rule versus its sibling rule (HTML page has a title + Document title is descriptive): https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/250#issuecomment-514933080 |
| Maureen Kraft | Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. | The Github.io page that is containing the rule is not accessible, at least not on Safari. I cannot scroll the page via the scroll bar. I can scroll the page if I put access on the first link, 2.4.2 Page Titled expandable section. After putting focus on this section cannot tab to any other element on the page. |
| 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 |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Other questions or concerns | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. | <ul> <li>Each of the background links have link text that is the URL rather than meaningful link text. Suggest adding meaningful text to the links like "Understanding SC 2.4.2 Page Titled".</li> </ul> |
| Wilco Fiers | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Kathy Eng | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Anne Thyme Nørregaard | The rule links to WCAG 2.0 Understanding documents and Techniques under Background. Shouldn't it be using 2.1 documents, that are up to date? Broken links in changelog: https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/734 | |
| Maureen Kraft | 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. | 3 |
| No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | 2 |
Details
| Responder | Readiness for publishing | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | <ul> <li>Fix the link text issue</li> <li>Strongly suggest moving the rule description right after the title.</li> </ul> |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | Is it ok that the inapplicable test case for svga has only 2 concurring inapplicable implementation results. The others' results were not tested and pass. |
| Anne Thyme Nørregaard | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | Not sure which are need-to-haves before publication, but I found issues with: - (naming of rule) - applicability being ambiguous - missing assumptions/notes about interpretations - linking to outdated WCAG 2.0 documents in background section - broken links in changelog |
| Maureen Kraft | No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | |
| Charu Pandhi | No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. | Reasons listed in the appropriate sections |
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