W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT Rules implementation and contribution

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 2019-11-06 to 2019-11-20.

3 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Review ACT-R guidance for rule implementers
  2. Questions you have
  3. Improvement suggestions
  4. Interest in contributing an implementation
  5. Interest in contributing to ACT work

1. Review ACT-R guidance for rule implementers

In order to further our work and publish accessibility conformance testing rules to test conformance to WCAG, the ACT Task Force needs accessibility test tools and test methodologies to document their implementations of the ACT rules being developed in the ACT-R community group.

We would like to get input from accessibility test tool and test methodology developers as to the ease or difficulty of contributing implementations of the ACT rules as well as your interest in contributing to our work. Please read the implementation overview page and the other sub-pages in the Implementations section of the ACT rules community group website. The list of pages to read are:

  • ACT Implementations
  • Mapping to Rule
  • Reporting Format
  • Submit An Implementation
  • Test Cases
  • Testing Tools
  • WCAG-EM Report Tool

Provide any thoughts you have by answering this brief survey.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results

Details

Responder Review ACT-R guidance for rule implementers
Charu Pandhi
Trevor Bostic
Kathy Eng

2. Questions you have

Are there any questions that you have about what you read?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No, the content is clear and understandable. 1
Yes, my questions are included in the comments field. 2

Details

Responder Questions you haveComments
Charu Pandhi No, the content is clear and understandable.
Trevor Bostic Yes, my questions are included in the comments field. 1. Do partial implementations contribute to the status of a rule (e.g., New, In Progress, Done)? I would think not, but am wondering if we should add the qualifier 'correct' for implementations in the status reports sections.
2. Should we always use the same link for @content in the reporting EARL? If so, we should clearly state that implementers should use this same link for the context. If not, then how would one go about creating this context?
3. In the assertions section, I don't know where the given example, 'such as duplicate IDs', for multiple assertions is coming from.
4. I am confused why the source is not one of the required properties of an assertion. How else does it get mapped to a particular test case? I think this may be explained in the advanced section, but I don't
know enough to understand that.
Kathy Eng Yes, my questions are included in the comments field. "Automated Mapping" should be renamed. Implementation Results?

Will implementers get feedback?

Why is Trusted Tester shown as an Incomplete Implementation?

3. Improvement suggestions

Are there any suggestions you have to improve the instructions and guidance for you to test your tool's implementation of the ACT rules or how to submit your test results? Please provide suggestions in the text field below.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No, I don't have any suggestions.
Yes, I have provided my suggestions below. 3

Details

Responder Improvement suggestionsComments
Charu Pandhi Yes, I have provided my suggestions below. - The test cases get flagged with accessibility violations other than for the rule being tested causing additional effort to triage the report. Using an Accessible template can resolve this problem.


Trevor Bostic Yes, I have provided my suggestions below. Answering or clarifying the questions above.
Kathy Eng Yes, I have provided my suggestions below. The purpose of the section Mapping to Rule - Implementation Scoping for an implementer is unclear. Is the message that implementers should test all the rules?

On Reporting Format, move this information from bottom to top so manual testers don't need to read all of it:
If you have a tool that can return a data format, you will need to run your tests against the ACT-R test cases and submit a report.
If you use manual test methodology, where you fill results into some report template or tool, you can Use the WCAG-EM Report Tool instead to produce implementation reports.

4. Interest in contributing an implementation

Are you interested in contributing an implementation of the ACT rules? If not, provide your reasons in the text field below.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes, I would like to contribute an implementation. 1
No, for the reasons in the text field below. 2

Details

Responder Interest in contributing an implementationComments
Charu Pandhi No, for the reasons in the text field below. Not yet, IBM is still investigating how to prioritize and contribute to this effort
Trevor Bostic No, for the reasons in the text field below. We are not an accessibility tool vendor. We are interested in finding "done" rules that can be used to help guide testing policy.
Kathy Eng Yes, I would like to contribute an implementation.

5. Interest in contributing to ACT work

Select one of the following, indicating your interest in contributing to our work

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
ACT Task Force (reviews ACT rules, maintains the ACT Rules format 1.0) 2
ACT-R Community Group (develops ACT rules used to test WCAG conformance) 1
None

Details

Responder Interest in contributing to ACT workComments
Charu Pandhi ACT Task Force (reviews ACT rules, maintains the ACT Rules format 1.0)
Trevor Bostic ACT-R Community Group (develops ACT rules used to test WCAG conformance) I would like to be involved with both. I am currently asking for additional time to be more involved in the rule creation.
Kathy Eng ACT Task Force (reviews ACT rules, maintains the ACT Rules format 1.0)

More details on responses

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Katie Haritos-Shea
  2. David MacDonald
  3. Romain Deltour
  4. Wilco Fiers
  5. Mary Jo Mueller
  6. Detlev Fischer
  7. Chris Loiselle
  8. Jonathan Avila
  9. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  10. Charles Adams
  11. Daniel Montalvo
  12. Todd Libby
  13. Thomas Brunet
  14. Catherine Droege
  15. Suji Sreerama
  16. Shane Dittmar
  17. 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 w3c/wbs-design or by mail to sysreq.