w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire Review of the Quickref Prototype
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email addresses: ee+wbs@w3.org,shadi+EOsurvey@w3.org
This questionnaire was open from 2015-11-03 to 2015-11-10.
25 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
1. Introduction Text
summary | by responder | by choice
Please review the text in “About this Quick Reference” section of How to Meet WCAG 2.0 (prototype) (click on “About this Quick Reference” in the header area):
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I approve this section for further public review; any comments are provided as Github issues or in the comments field below. | 23 |
| I approve this section for further public review only after the comments provided as Github issues or in the comment field below have been addressed (please clearly indicate the objection items). | 1 |
| I do not approve this section for further public review because of the comments provided as Github issues or in the comment field below (please clearly indicate the objection items). | 1 |
| I abstain. | 1 |
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | Introduction Text | |
|---|---|---|
| Brent Bakken |
|
|
| Sylvie Duchateau |
|
May be a typo in following sentence: "More background on these resources in provided in WCAG Overview and The WCAG 2.0 Documents". Proposal: More background on these resources *ìs* provided... |
| Joshue O'Connor |
|
|
| Laura Carlson |
|
|
| Mike Pluke |
|
|
| Kathleen Wahlbin |
|
|
| Andrew Kirkpatrick |
|
1) I think that "About", "How to use", and "contribute" should be headings. 2) I think that the "About this Quick Reference" would be more usable if it hid everything else on the page and then needed to be closed to view the main content again. Could be as a modal dialog, similar effect. |
| Michael Cooper |
|
I clicked the link above and it didn't open in a new tab as our surveys usually do. I clicked the back button and it wouldn't let me back. I think it's a problem for the quickref to break the back button. I found it disconcerting that after opening the section it was frozen at the top of the page and I basically lost my ability to scroll until I closed it again. I want to be able to keep it open at the top so I can refer to it, yet scroll through the rest also. |
| George Heake |
|
|
| Denis Boudreau |
|
ACAA is whooping my butt this year, and as the December 12th deadline approaches, I cannot spend the appropriate time to review. I abstain. |
| Jan Richards |
|
|
| Eric Eggert |
|
[Editor] |
| Adina Halter |
|
i like the layout for the about but I would like to see more white space between the gray boxes and more padding inside the gray boxes. As someone with ADD I had a hard time reading the content since it seemed all crunched together. |
| Sailesh Panchang |
|
Review of the Mockup- Quickref Prototype "About this quickref section" Comments: 1. Refer to BUTTON element with aria-controls=pageinfo . In collapsed state, the button is correctly announced as "About this quick reference collapsed". But, in expanded mode the button is read by a screen reader (NVDA and JAWS on Windows and VoiceOver on iOS) as "Hide this information expanded" What is "this info"? And why does it say hide and expanded together? It should be announced as "About this quick ref expanded". 2. I do not think it is appropriate to refer to WCAG as "Web standards" ... standards has a different connotation. I know this is not normative but these terms should not be used loosely or interchangeably, because WCAG 2 is legal where it has been referenced in legislation. 3. Refer to the line, "Select the “Filter” tab in the main menu to customize: 3.1. The "Filter element is exposed as a link both in Windows and on iOS ... confusing when it is referred to as a tab. The Filter element is a link that displays / hides the tab panel, right? And there is a tab panel in the nav section but elements in it are exposed as links. The navigation landmark should have aria-label="main menu" so the nav elements can be identified as per the referenced instruction. |
| Susan Hewitt |
|
|
| Jim Allan |
|
|
| Anna Belle Leiserson |
|
|
| David MacDonald |
|
I does not appear that the links on the table of contents can be operated with a keyboard. (fixed) |
| Andrew Arch |
|
Editorial suggestion in Github |
| James Green |
|
|
| David Berman |
|
|
| Vivienne Conway |
|
|
| Kenny Zhang |
|
|
| Vicki Menezes Miller |
|
|
| Howard Kramer |
|
I wondered if this last panel - contribute - could be eliminated, shortened, or put somewhere else. But not something I would hold up public review for. |
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| I approve this section for further public review; any comments are provided as Github issues or in the comments field below. |
|
| I approve this section for further public review only after the comments provided as Github issues or in the comment field below have been addressed (please clearly indicate the objection items). |
|
| I do not approve this section for further public review because of the comments provided as Github issues or in the comment field below (please clearly indicate the objection items). |
|
| I abstain. |
|
2. Review Approval
summary | by responder | by choice
Provided that all objections to the introduction text have been resolved, do you approve a public review of How to Meet WCAG 2.0 (prototype):
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I approve publication for further public review; any comments are provided as Github issues or in the comments field below. | 22 |
| I approve publication for further public review only after the comments provided as Github issues or in the comment field below have been addressed (please clearly indicate the objection items). | 1 |
| I do not approve publication for further public review because of the comments provided as Github issues or in the comment field below (please clearly indicate the objection items). | |
| I abstain. | 1 |
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | Review Approval | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Brent Bakken |
|
|
| Sylvie Duchateau |
|
|
| Joshue O'Connor |
|
I'm happy for it to go for public review. Personally, I'd like to see some more visual flourishes to make it pop a little more. It needs colour, and to feel light. I think in terms of function it's very good, but needs that extra push. Maybe looking at some of the colour combinations in the new W3C style guide would help? HTH |
| Laura Carlson |
|
|
| Mike Pluke |
|
|
| Kathleen Wahlbin |
|
|
| Andrew Kirkpatrick |
|
David, specifically what can't be operated from the keyboard? I can access everything in the "contents" tab on the left side via the keyboard (using Safari and Chrome on Mac) Smaller issues: 1) The list of links in the contents tab would be wonderful to not need to tab through. Have we considered treating the content as a tree? 2) It seems likely to cause confusion that the checkboxes for sufficient/advisory/failures are provided at the guideline level when there are techniques since the techniques are always advisory. 3) I think that the popup to share a link to the section should be modal. 4) The text input with the URL within the share popup cannot be keyboard navigated, so all links look the same. We could just have a "copy link" button and avoid the instructions and avoid writing out the link |
| Michael Cooper |
|
|
| George Heake |
|
|
| Denis Boudreau |
|
ACAA is whooping my butt this year, and as the December 12th deadline approaches, I cannot spend the appropriate time to review. I abstain. |
| Jan Richards |
|
|
| Eric Eggert |
|
[Editor] |
| Adina Halter |
|
|
| Sailesh Panchang |
|
I found the survey confusing: normally there are radio buttons for approve / do not approve choices but there are checkboxes here? There are 2 groups of checkboxes with very similar and long label text. Maybe grouping them with fieldset legend and briefer label text will help.... |
| Susan Hewitt |
|
|
| Jim Allan |
|
|
| Anna Belle Leiserson |
|
|
| David MacDonald | ||
| Andrew Arch |
|
|
| James Green |
|
It's a very solid prototype with lots of features and functionality. I think it's time for the group to get some feedback from the public to make sure we're going in the right direction. |
| David Berman |
|
|
| Vivienne Conway |
|
One of the biggest issues I hear is that people don't know when techniques have changed, which would require them to be constantly checking the whole thing. Could there be a date included on the techniques/failures etc showing the last date changed? Either that or some kind of digest of changes people could subscribe to? |
| Kenny Zhang |
|
|
| Vicki Menezes Miller |
|
|
| Howard Kramer |
|
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| I approve publication for further public review; any comments are provided as Github issues or in the comments field below. |
|
| I approve publication for further public review only after the comments provided as Github issues or in the comment field below have been addressed (please clearly indicate the objection items). |
|
| I do not approve publication for further public review because of the comments provided as Github issues or in the comment field below (please clearly indicate the objection items). | |
| I abstain. |
|
More details on responses
- Brent Bakken: last responded on 4, November 2015 at 23:08 (UTC)
- Sylvie Duchateau: last responded on 6, November 2015 at 10:02 (UTC)
- Joshue O'Connor: last responded on 6, November 2015 at 17:02 (UTC)
- Laura Carlson: last responded on 6, November 2015 at 19:12 (UTC)
- Mike Pluke: last responded on 9, November 2015 at 11:01 (UTC)
- Kathleen Wahlbin: last responded on 10, November 2015 at 11:07 (UTC)
- Andrew Kirkpatrick: last responded on 10, November 2015 at 13:51 (UTC)
- Michael Cooper: last responded on 10, November 2015 at 13:59 (UTC)
- George Heake: last responded on 10, November 2015 at 14:32 (UTC)
- Denis Boudreau: last responded on 10, November 2015 at 14:42 (UTC)
- Jan Richards: last responded on 10, November 2015 at 14:42 (UTC)
- Eric Eggert: last responded on 10, November 2015 at 14:45 (UTC)
- Adina Halter: last responded on 10, November 2015 at 15:09 (UTC)
- Sailesh Panchang: last responded on 10, November 2015 at 16:38 (UTC)
- Susan Hewitt: last responded on 10, November 2015 at 17:27 (UTC)
- Jim Allan: last responded on 10, November 2015 at 18:27 (UTC)
- Anna Belle Leiserson: last responded on 10, November 2015 at 20:44 (UTC)
- David MacDonald: last responded on 10, November 2015 at 21:14 (UTC)
- Andrew Arch: last responded on 10, November 2015 at 22:36 (UTC)
- James Green: last responded on 11, November 2015 at 00:12 (UTC)
- David Berman: last responded on 11, November 2015 at 02:31 (UTC)
- Vivienne Conway: last responded on 11, November 2015 at 03:10 (UTC)
- Kenny Zhang: last responded on 11, November 2015 at 03:31 (UTC)
- Vicki Menezes Miller: last responded on 11, November 2015 at 04:35 (UTC)
- Howard Kramer: last responded on 11, November 2015 at 05:06 (UTC)
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