W3C

Site Navigation

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2021-04-06 to 2021-04-15.

6 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Please take time to review the States in ACT rules . Did you:

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
I reviewed it thoroughly.	4
I skimmed it.	2
I didn't get to it. I abstain (not vote). Accept the decision of the group.

Responder	About this Review	Comment
Detlev Fischer	I skimmed it.
Charles Adams	I skimmed it.
Kathy Eng	I reviewed it thoroughly.	2. Call for review Once a pull request has the necessary approvals, the author of the pull request sends an e-mail to the ACT Rules Community Group mailing list - should this email be sent to both the TF and CG? Annual Check - 1st paragraph, last sentence: "If any changes are deemed necessary, a liaison is picked and the change request is handled as survey feedback, starting in the validation step." - - this sentence may not be needed since it's covered in the next paragraph - also starting point would depend on the significance of the change. if a change is approved to pass/fail examples, implementations would need to be updated.
Wilco Fiers	I reviewed it thoroughly.
Daniel Montalvo	I reviewed it thoroughly.	Just minor suggestions for what I think are missing commas. Otherwise, this looks much better now. https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/515#pullrequestreview-636545703
Trevor Bostic	I reviewed it thoroughly.

Please review the States in ACT rules . Do you have any suggested changes you want to see?

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Looks good, no changes to suggest	3
I have a suggestion for editor's discretion entered below.	2
I have a strong suggestion and do not approve the section without this change, entered below

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Responder	proposal for state in ACT rules	Comments
Detlev Fischer	Looks good, no changes to suggest
Charles Adams
Kathy Eng	I have a suggestion for editor's discretion entered below.	If there is an "Applicable States and Transitions'" should there be a section for "Expected States and Transitions", and vice-versa? Would be good to explain (whatever the answer may be)
Wilco Fiers	I have a suggestion for editor's discretion entered below.	While I think pseudo-selectors are a good solution, because these are specific to CSS I don't think this will work. There is also other state related information, such as image loading states that I think is important to consider, which can not be tested for with CSS. The other thing about pseudo elements is that it is a short-hand for the actual state. The focus pseudo class can be active while the element is still transitioning. How would we define a transition, and decide that a transition has ended? I feel that more thought should go into how state is addressed in test cases. If I have a test case that fails on hoaver, but passes on without it, is it fair to say that an implementors that does not, for technical reasons test hover states is a partial implementation of that rule? That doesn't feel right to me.
Daniel Montalvo	Looks good, no changes to suggest
Trevor Bostic	Looks good, no changes to suggest