w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: Heading has non-empty 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 2020-12-02 to 2021-01-07.
6 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Instructions
- Consistency with ACT Rules Format
- Rule assumptions
- Implementation data
- Consistent with accessibility requirements
- Remaining open issues
- Other questions or concerns
- Rule is up-to-date
- Readiness for publishing
1. Instructions
Review the rule Heading has non-empty accessible name 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 |
|---|---|
| Detlev Fischer | |
| Wilco Fiers | |
| Kathy Eng | |
| Trevor Bostic | |
| Levon Spradlin | |
| Mary Jo Mueller |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Detlev Fischer | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes | |
| Levon Spradlin | Yes | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes |
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. | 1 |
| I don't know. My questions are documented below. | 1 |
Details
| Responder | Rule assumptions | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Detlev Fischer | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. | This rule asserts that empty headings, even if assistive technologies ignore them, are a failure of SC 1.3.1 and 2.4.6. I don't think that's accurate. If assistive technologies consistently ignore an element that should be ignored, there is no violation of WCAG. |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes | |
| Levon Spradlin | Yes | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | I don't know. My questions are documented below. | To Wilco's point, perhaps the assumption is that some ATs do not ignore a heading with an empty name, and so this check ensures headings have a programmatic name. If ALL ATs ignore semantic headings without a name, then why have this rule? |
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. | 1 |
Details
| Responder | Implementation data | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Detlev Fischer | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes | |
| Trevor Bostic | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | Passed example 3 would still have an accessible name without the aria-labelledby due to its text-content. Would it be more clear to have no text? |
| Levon Spradlin | Yes | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes |
5. Consistent with accessibility requirements
Is the rule consistent with existing accessibility standards (e.g. WCAG, ARIA, etc.)?
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 | Consistent with accessibility requirements | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Detlev Fischer | Yes | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
| Kathy Eng | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | I agree with 1.3.1, but I don't think 2.4.6, which requires a descriptive heading when a heading is provided, is applicable. The rule is just looking for non-empty. From Understanding 2.4.6 (https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/headings-and-labels.html): This Success Criterion does not require headings or labels. This Success Criterion requires that if headings or labels are provided, they be descriptive. |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes | |
| Levon Spradlin | Yes | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | Agree with Kathy. 2.4.6 is about having descriptive headings, but as part of the rules to check it, the rule would have to discover the programmatic heading and associated label. However, if all AT's ignore headings without labels then you essentially wouldn't have a programmatic heading and 2.4.6 wouldn't fail. |
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. | 6 |
Details
| Responder | Remaining open issues | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Detlev Fischer | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Wilco Fiers | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Kathy Eng | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Trevor Bostic | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Levon Spradlin | No, there are no open issues. | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | 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. | 5 |
Details
| Responder | Other questions or concerns | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Detlev Fischer | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. | |
| Kathy Eng | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Trevor Bostic | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Levon Spradlin | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | No, I have no further questions or concerns. |
8. Rule is up-to-date
Is the rule up to date? If so, the accessibility support should still be relevant, it should follow the recommended writing style, and use up to date links.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes, all information is up-to-date. | 6 |
| No, it needs the following changes. | |
| I don't know, but I have the following concerns. |
Details
| Responder | Rule is up-to-date | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Detlev Fischer | Yes, all information is up-to-date. | |
| Wilco Fiers | Yes, all information is up-to-date. | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes, all information is up-to-date. | |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes, all information is up-to-date. | |
| Levon Spradlin | Yes, all information is up-to-date. | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, all information is up-to-date. |
9. 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. | 2 |
| Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | 3 |
| No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Readiness for publishing | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Detlev Fischer | Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. | |
| Wilco Fiers | I am unsure. Would like to hear what others think of this rule. | |
| Kathy Eng | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | remove 2.4.6 |
| Trevor Bostic | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | Possibly change passed example 3 |
| Levon Spradlin | Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | Not entirely sure. May need changes to assumptions, may need changes in mapping. |
More details on responses
- Detlev Fischer: last responded on 2, December 2020 at 18:21 (UTC)
- Wilco Fiers: last responded on 15, December 2020 at 13:52 (UTC)
- Kathy Eng: last responded on 16, December 2020 at 00:29 (UTC)
- Trevor Bostic: last responded on 17, December 2020 at 13:55 (UTC)
- Levon Spradlin: last responded on 6, January 2021 at 23:26 (UTC)
- Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 7, January 2021 at 13:50 (UTC)
Non-responders
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
- Katie Haritos-Shea
- David MacDonald
- Romain Deltour
- Chris Loiselle
- Jonathan Avila
- Rachael Bradley Montgomery
- Charles Adams
- Daniel Montalvo
- Todd Libby
- Thomas Brunet
- Catherine Droege
- Suji Sreerama
- Shane Dittmar
- Nayan Padrai
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