w3c/wbs-design
or
by mail to sysreq
.
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 2020-11-11 to 2020-12-03.
5 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
Review the rule Visible label is part of accessible name which updated to resolve Issue 491. 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.
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results |
Responder | Instructions |
---|---|
Trevor Bostic | |
Wilco Fiers | |
Kathy Eng | |
Detlev Fischer | |
Mary Jo Mueller |
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 are documented below. |
Responder | Consistency with ACT Rules Format | Comments |
---|---|---|
Trevor Bostic | Yes | |
Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
Kathy Eng | Yes | |
Detlev Fischer | Yes | |
Mary Jo Mueller | Yes |
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 are documented below. | 1 |
Responder | Rule assumptions | Comments |
---|---|---|
Trevor Bostic | Yes | |
Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
Kathy Eng | Yes | |
Detlev Fischer | I don't know. My questions are documented below. | I can think of cases where elements have several visible label elements, for example a construct of "Sorting Code" label to the left of a text input with a valid example of input above. In this case, the expectation would be that Sorting code is part of the accname, not the example text. The rule does not seem to cover that case. A similar case could be the combination of label and placeholder where placeholder should probably be discounted (but would need to be contained in accName) if it is the only way of labelling the control, or a floating label construct. |
Mary Jo Mueller | Yes |
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Yes | 3 |
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 |
Responder | Implementation data | Comments |
---|---|---|
Trevor Bostic | Yes | |
Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
Kathy Eng | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | - Passed Ex 6 - not sure that this rule should apply. The "search" text is not visible, and the magnifying glass is not a "a type of non-text content that uses text characters as symbols". - Inapplicable Ex 2 - if this is inapplicable because it input is not a widget, please update the explanation. Counter to the given explanation, the Understanding article includes "in the absence of left-side labels, immediately above and aligned with the left edge of each input)" and this should pass. - would be good to include an image of text in the pass/fail examples. |
Detlev Fischer | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | Not checked. |
Mary Jo Mueller | Yes |
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Yes | 3 |
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 |
Responder | Consistent with accessibility requirements | Comments |
---|---|---|
Trevor Bostic | Yes | |
Wilco Fiers | Yes | |
Kathy Eng | Yes | |
Detlev Fischer | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | Yes but the issue raised above might need explicit coverage. There may be other scenarios introducing contextual uncertainty what the label is and whether it should be counted as label - as in cases where there is a heading for a pop-up (e.g. a search pop-up) that can be interpreted as a label of the field, but the field itself may be visually labelled by an icon (loupe) and therefore arguably not fall under "label in name". Would we then require the heading to be part of the accName of the field? I think it is a grey area. |
Mary Jo Mueller | I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. | Interesting point brought up by Detlev. But if clarity is needed, the AG WG would need to clarify in the requirement what is counted as the label. I believe it is the visible label not an icon with alt text to form the label. IMO, this requirement came into being because of voice control software where the user sees a visible label and speaks it to navigate to the element, but the label was overridden by an aria label that didn't contain the exact verbiage which prevent navigation from working correctly. |
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. | 3 |
No, there are no open issues. | 1 |
Responder | Remaining open issues | Comments |
---|---|---|
Trevor Bostic | No, there are no open issues. | |
Wilco Fiers | Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. | All three open issues are about expanding the scope of the rule to be able to fail more types of issues. This needs further discussion as all of them have a potential of adding new types of false positives. Suggest we publish the rule as is, and let the CG figure out if they want any of these changes later. |
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/1500 |
Detlev Fischer | Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. | See comments above. |
Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. | There are three open issues. I'm not familiar enough with them to know if they need to be addressed prior to publishing. |
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. | |
No, I have no further questions or concerns. | 5 |
Responder | Other questions or concerns | Comments |
---|---|---|
Trevor Bostic | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
Wilco Fiers | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
Kathy Eng | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
Detlev Fischer | No, I have no further questions or concerns. | |
Mary Jo Mueller | No, I have no further questions or concerns. |
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Yes, all information is up-to-date. | 4 |
No, it needs the following changes. | |
I don't know, but I have the following concerns. | 1 |
Responder | Rule is up-to-date | Comments |
---|---|---|
Trevor Bostic | 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. | |
Detlev Fischer | I don't know, but I have the following concerns. | Concerns listed above. I can see cases where a strict application of the rule is difficult. |
Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, all information is up-to-date. |
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. | 3 |
Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | 2 |
No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. |
Responder | Readiness for publishing | Comments |
---|---|---|
Trevor Bostic | Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. | |
Wilco Fiers | Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. | |
Kathy Eng | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | See 4. implementation comments |
Detlev Fischer | Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. | Possibly cover / or separate from / edge cases described above. |
Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. |
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
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
w3c/wbs-design
or
by mail to sysreq
.