w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire Update to rule writing & publication process
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.
This questionnaire was open from 2021-03-22 to 2021-03-26.
11 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
1. About this Review
Please take time to review the updated ACT Publication Process. Did you:
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I reviewed it thoroughly. | 9 |
| I skimmed it. | 1 |
| I didn't get to it. I abstain (not vote). Accept the decision of the group. | 1 |
Details
| Responder | About this Review | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Shadi Abou-Zahra | I reviewed it thoroughly. | |
| Zainab AlMeraj | I didn't get to it. I abstain (not vote). Accept the decision of the group. | |
| Bruce Bailey | I reviewed it thoroughly. | I must say that I love that you have included the third option! What you really want, I think, is that not voting at all -- in general -- counts as accepting the decision of the group. Good luck with that! |
| Kathy Eng | I reviewed it thoroughly. | |
| Aron Janecki | I reviewed it thoroughly. | |
| Trevor Bostic | I reviewed it thoroughly. | |
| william creedle | I reviewed it thoroughly. | |
| Emma Pratt Richens | I skimmed it. | These seem like reasonable changes to align more closely with the processes currently happening within the ACT Rules CG. I didn't review more thoroughly, as I can't leave comments, but I do agree with both of Trevor's grammar comments on use of commas. |
| Susan Hewitt | I reviewed it thoroughly. | |
| John HICKS | I reviewed it thoroughly. | |
| Daniel Montalvo | I reviewed it thoroughly. |
2. ACT Publication steps
Please review the update to the ACT rule publication process section. Do you have any suggested changes you want to see?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Looks good, no changes to suggest | 5 |
| I have a suggestion for editor's discretion entered below. | 6 |
| I have a strong suggestion and do not approve the section without this change, entered below |
Details
| Responder | ACT Publication steps | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Shadi Abou-Zahra | I have a suggestion for editor's discretion entered below. | - Section "Draft proposal" defines the duration of "Call for review" -- maybe this should be in the next section instead? - I had previously asked for the last paragraph in "Call for review" to be put there but seeing now the updated write-up, I mildly feel it may be better to put it back as first paragraph under "Call for implementation" - Maybe change "Publish approval" to "Approval to publish", "Publication approval", or such? (for grammar) |
| Zainab AlMeraj | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Bruce Bailey | I have a suggestion for editor's discretion entered below. | I think you need to say more about good faith efforts for when <q>changes are editorial</q>. In my experience, there is a lot of churn when someone make <q>editorial</q> changes which turn out to change the meaning. Maybe define editorial as being limited to typos? |
| Kathy Eng | I have a suggestion for editor's discretion entered below. | Change order of 2. Call for review: 1. If no changes are requested on the pull request during the review period, the author is free to merge the pull request. 2. If the changes are editorial, the pull request can be merged any time after the review period. 3. If the changes are not editorial, the author must resolve the requested changes followed by a one week call for review. A comment is resolved when it has approval from the original commenter, and at least two other reviewers. This can happen during or after the call for review. "draft proposal" links are not working. Line 70: specify who creates the draft proposal when AG requests editorial changes? |
| Aron Janecki | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Trevor Bostic | I have a suggestion for editor's discretion entered below. | I put some comments on the PR about some grammar changes. In the call for implementations section, is there anything to the rule author needs to (or can) do to request implementations. As it stands it seems like rules are published as proposals and then just wait to be noticed by implementers. |
| william creedle | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Emma Pratt Richens | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Susan Hewitt | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| John HICKS | I have a suggestion for editor's discretion entered below. | As regards the complete implemementations the conflation of passed and inapplicable seems suspect to me. Non applicable is not a pass and a tool should distinguish this because in certain countries (e.g. France) compliance is calculated and that does not include non applicable "passes" a cynical person might think this requirement for "complete implementation" had been written with an already existing implementation in mind ! |
| Daniel Montalvo | I have a suggestion for editor's discretion entered below. | Please see my comments at https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/515/files |
3. Public feedback
Please review the update to the Public Feedback section. Do you have any suggested changes you want to see?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Looks good, no changes to suggest | 9 |
| I have a suggestion for editor's discretion entered below. | 2 |
| I have a strong suggestion and do not approve the section without this change, entered below |
Details
| Responder | Public feedback | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Shadi Abou-Zahra | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Zainab AlMeraj | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Bruce Bailey | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Kathy Eng | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Aron Janecki | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Trevor Bostic | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| william creedle | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Emma Pratt Richens | I have a suggestion for editor's discretion entered below. | "This may be a reply which indicates when an answers is expected." This isn't good grammar. I suggest the following: "This may be a brief reply that indicates when a full response is expected." |
| Susan Hewitt | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| John HICKS | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Daniel Montalvo | I have a suggestion for editor's discretion entered below. | Please see my comments at https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/515/files |
4. Anual Review
Please review the update to the Annual Review section. Do you have any suggested changes you want to see?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Looks good, no changes to suggest | 8 |
| I have a suggestion for editor's discretion entered below. | 3 |
| I have a strong suggestion and do not approve the section without this change, entered below |
Details
| Responder | Anual Review | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Shadi Abou-Zahra | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Zainab AlMeraj | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Bruce Bailey | I have a suggestion for editor's discretion entered below. | Mostly I am commenting just to say that a full annual review seems very ambitious to me. I will suggest that the expectations for Annual Review be expressed using phrasing that is more aspirational, as opposed to something that could be used after 365 days as a black/white failure of the group activity. |
| Kathy Eng | Looks good, no changes to suggest | Q: will we see implementations that are incomplete so we can understand why a rule is not validated? |
| Aron Janecki | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Trevor Bostic | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| william creedle | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Emma Pratt Richens | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Susan Hewitt | I have a suggestion for editor's discretion entered below. | Perhaps provide a link to the process for annual review. I couldn't find this info out there already but it would be good to note the process for triggering and assigning reviews of published rules. |
| John HICKS | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Daniel Montalvo | I have a suggestion for editor's discretion entered below. | Please see my comments at https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/515/files |
5. Other comments
Do you have any other comments or suggested changes you want to see?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Looks good, no changes to suggest | 9 |
| I have a suggestion for editor's discretion entered below. | 1 |
| I have a strong suggestion and do not approve the section without this change, entered below |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Other comments | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Shadi Abou-Zahra | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Zainab AlMeraj | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Bruce Bailey | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Kathy Eng | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Aron Janecki | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Trevor Bostic | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| william creedle | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| Emma Pratt Richens | Looks good, no changes to suggest | No other changes to suggest. |
| Susan Hewitt | Looks good, no changes to suggest | |
| John HICKS | I have a suggestion for editor's discretion entered below. | My comment on the implementation criteria perhaps belongs here |
| Daniel Montalvo |
More details on responses
- Shadi Abou-Zahra: last responded on 23, March 2021 at 14:56 (UTC)
- Zainab AlMeraj: last responded on 23, March 2021 at 17:19 (UTC)
- Bruce Bailey: last responded on 23, March 2021 at 19:14 (UTC)
- Kathy Eng: last responded on 23, March 2021 at 19:49 (UTC)
- Aron Janecki: last responded on 24, March 2021 at 08:04 (UTC)
- Trevor Bostic: last responded on 24, March 2021 at 12:59 (UTC)
- william creedle: last responded on 24, March 2021 at 13:19 (UTC)
- Emma Pratt Richens: last responded on 24, March 2021 at 16:05 (UTC)
- Susan Hewitt: last responded on 24, March 2021 at 20:56 (UTC)
- John HICKS: last responded on 25, March 2021 at 09:48 (UTC)
- Daniel Montalvo: last responded on 25, March 2021 at 11:58 (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