w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: iframe element has 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 2020-02-10 to 2020-02-19.
8 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 iframe element has accessible name and Pull request 1156 to resolve comments in Issue 428 from the last survey. These changes will be merged once the ACT-R has completed their final call.
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 |
|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | |
| Charu Pandhi | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | |
| Kathy Eng | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | |
| Jonathan Avila | |
| Jey Nandakumar | |
| Trevor Bostic |
2. Consistency with ACT Rules Format
Does the rule follow the ACT Rules Format 1.0?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes | 7 |
| No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | |
| I don't know. My questions are documented below. |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Consistency with ACT Rules Format | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Charu Pandhi | Yes | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes | |
| Jonathan Avila | ||
| Jey Nandakumar | Yes | |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes |
3. Rule assumptions
Are the assumptions acceptable?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes | 7 |
| No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | |
| I don't know. My questions are documented below. |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Rule assumptions | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Charu Pandhi | Yes | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes | |
| Jonathan Avila | ||
| Jey Nandakumar | Yes | |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes |
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. | 3 |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Implementation data | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | Although it's worth noting that failed example 7 is only consistent in Alfa. |
| Charu Pandhi | Yes | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | Suggest adding an applicable example with tabindex=-1 to show that iframe is in accessibility tree and rule is applicable. https://act-rules.github.io/implementation/axe-core#id-cae760 has an extra column of results (maybe from a different test?). Failed Ex 3 and Inapp Ex 3 are untested for all implementors but Axe. Should we get these tested by them? |
| Mary Jo Mueller | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | To Kathy's comments, I don't think it is necessary to have another example with tabindex=-1 as that is known to only remove an element from the tab order and doesn't remove its role or the requirement for an accessible name. I think the additional Axe results is because there are 2 rules in Axe covering different aspects of the test cases (Wilco, please verify). I think we only need one implementation for publication, but we should definitely ask for the missing results. |
| Jonathan Avila | ||
| Jey Nandakumar | Yes | |
| Trevor Bostic | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | Should we remove passed example 4 to be consistent with removing :-) from accessible names.across all rules? |
5. Consistent with WCAG
Is the rule consistent with existing WCAG documents?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes | 7 |
| 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. |
Details
| Responder | Consistent with WCAG | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Charu Pandhi | Yes | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes | |
| Jonathan Avila | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | I have an open issue in github on whether iFrames with tabIndex -1 should really be exempt from the naming rule. While I agree they don't fit under SC 4.1.2 I believe it should fall under SC 1.3.1. |
| Jey Nandakumar | Yes | |
| Trevor Bostic | 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. | 1 |
| Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. | 2 |
| No, there are no open issues. | 4 |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Remaining open issues | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Charu Pandhi | 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/1170 |
| Kathy Eng | Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. | https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1170 |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. | Issue 1170 |
| Jonathan Avila | ||
| Jey Nandakumar | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Trevor Bostic | 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. | 6 |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Other questions or concerns | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Charu Pandhi | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Kasper Isager Dalsgarð | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. | Under Accessibility Support Some browsers include iframe elements in the sequential focus navigation. This ensures that iframe elements can always be scrolled using the keyboard. Suggest edit to last sentence: This ensures that iframe elements can be scrolled and its content can be accessed by keyboard. |
| Mary Jo Mueller | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Jonathan Avila | ||
| Jey Nandakumar | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Trevor Bostic | 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. | 3 |
| No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. |
(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Readiness for publishing | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Wilco Fiers | Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. | |
| Charu Pandhi | 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. |
| Kathy Eng | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | update implementations for the untested examples. |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Need to resolve the open issue. I think the rule can be published without the updates to the implementations. | |
| Jonathan Avila | ||
| Jey Nandakumar | Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. | |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | Possibly fixing passed example 4. |
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