W3C WBS Home

Results of Questionnaire AUWG Survey for 7 February 2011

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2011-02-04 to 2011-02-14.

11 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Renaming "Applicability Notes" as "Conformance Conditions"
  2. Proposal re: B.1.1.3:
  3. Proposal to strengthen B.2.1.1 (was B.1.1.1)
  4. Rewording of B.2.4.4

1. Renaming "Applicability Notes" as "Conformance Conditions"

Renaming "Applicability Notes" as "Conformance Conditions"

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) 1
Disagree with the proposal 1
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group 3

Details

Responder Renaming "Applicability Notes" as "Conformance Conditions"Comments on Renaming Applicability Notes
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jutta Treviranus Accept the proposal
Alex Li The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) "Conditions" 3 and 4 are not really "conditions" in my understanding. They are more like disclaimer from W3C. Also, is it me or does conditions 1 & 2 sound nick picky? So what if the conformance claim does not meet those two conditions?
Sueann Nichols Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group
Jeanne F Spellman Disagree with the proposal I am ok with Conformance, but I don't think "Conditions" applies, since it has a strong connotation of "if-then" testable. Conformance Notes, Conformance Information, Conformance Applicability Note, would all be acceptable.
Alastair Campbell Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group These are fairly equal in my view. Other options could be "Scoping Notes", "Scope of application", or simply "Scope"?
Andrew Ronksley Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group
Cherie Ekholm Accept the proposal

2. Proposal re: B.1.1.3:

Folding " B.1.1.3 Template Auto-Selection (WCAG)" into a note in "B.1.1.2 Content Auto-Generation During Authoring Sessions (WCAG)": " Note 1: Automatic generation includes automatically selecting templates for authors."

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 9
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group 2

Details

Responder Proposal re: B.1.1.3:Comments on B.1.1.3
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jutta Treviranus Accept the proposal
Alex Li Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group
Sueann Nichols Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal I agree that can be done. The only comment is that the levels aspect appears to be a sub-set of of (d). I don't think it is intended to be, it just looks like that.
Andrew Ronksley Accept the proposal
Cherie Ekholm Accept the proposal

3. Proposal to strengthen B.2.1.1 (was B.1.1.1)

Email reference: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0100.html

PROPOSED WORDING:

(was B.1.1.1) Accessible Content Possible (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides authors with the ability to add or modify web content so that a WCAG 2.0 success criterion is applicable, then authors can use the authoring tool to meet the success criterion.
The WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria are met (Level A); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA success criteria are met (Level AA); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A, Level AA, and Level AAA success criteria are met (Level AAA).

CURRENT WORDING:

(was B.1.1.1) Accessible Content Production (WCAG): Authors can use the authoring tool to produce accessible web content (WCAG): [Implementing B.2.1.1]
The WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria are met (Level A); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA success criteria are met (Level AA); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A, Level AA, and Level AAA success criteria are met (Level AAA).

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) 2
Disagree with the proposal 1
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group 1

Details

Responder Proposal to strengthen B.2.1.1 (was B.1.1.1)Comments on B.2.1.1:
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) If the authoring tool provides authors with the ability to add or modify web content so that a WCAG 2.0 success criterion is applicable,

<Question>
I like the original one better. THe new wording seems to be more tightly worded to ensuring success at the element level. Upon further reflection, tying the accessibility of the tool to the accessibility of its product and asking publishers to certify what content producers are doing with their tools is fraught with problems.

If you can produce one instance of compliant content using the tool is that sufficient, or is some thought being given to the conditions under which that content was produced? If one unlikely use case could be used to justify a claim is that what we want. On the other hand, must we ensure that all outcomes be accessible to the level claimed? Can we?

We are in the realm of attempting to distinguish between what is theoretically possible against what is likely.

What is the applicability, for the content in its entirety or for some individual aspect of the tool - assume for instance you can add alternative text, but cannot specify links in an accessible way -

Is it reasonable to expect a tool provider to certify every conceivable instance or permutation for the output, can you qualify this, if you limit yourself to these authoring tool features and do not invoke x, y, and z then your output will be conforming to the appropriate success criteria

Just because it is possible that is no guarantee that the authors will be using it properly, are we giving content producers and out here, I used the ACME web developers toolkit which certifies the production of accessible content for level 2 WCAG, what's the problem?

Well, the problem is either the folks at ACME are misrepresenting their tools abilities, or you are not adept at using the tool.

<end Question>

then authors can use the authoring tool to meet the success criterion.
Jutta Treviranus Accept the proposal
Alex Li The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) I think we need to modify the the proposed wording to "...the ability to modify...", ie delete "add or". The reason is that a tool needs the ability to modify in order to meet WCAG 2. Merely adding something does not usually give the author adequate control to satisfy WCAG 2.0 SC.
Sueann Nichols Disagree with the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal
Andrew Ronksley Accept the proposal
Cherie Ekholm Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

4. Rewording of B.2.4.4

Rewording of B.2.4.4

Email of proposal

Proposal:

B.2.4.4 Save for Reuse: When authors enter programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content, both of the following are true: (Level AAA) (a) the text alternatives are automatically saved and suggested by the authoring tool, if the same non-text content is reused; and (b) the author has the option to edit or delete the saved text alternatives.

Old wording:

B.2.4.4 Save for Reuse: Authors have the option of having any recognized plain text alternative content that they enter (e.g., short text labels, long descriptions) stored for future reuse.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 9
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal 1
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group 1

Details

Responder Rewording of B.2.4.4Comments on Alternative Content
Roberto Scano Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Disagree with the proposal Seems as if we are stepping up the game here. We have gone from storing non text alternatives to introducing added funtionality - pairing the alternative to an object in an intelligent fashion. This image of the current celebrity of the minute will always get the same alternative text when it is used in this application?

I think it was sufficient to just be able to store and recall the alt text so that when the same image is used, or another image of the same person is used, the author has the convenience of determining if a previous alt text description of the image can be resused.
Jutta Treviranus Accept the proposal
Alex Li Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal
Andrew Ronksley Accept the proposal
Cherie Ekholm Accept the proposal

More details on responses

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
  2. Jan Richards <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
  3. Tom Babinszki <tbabins@us.ibm.com>

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


Completed and maintained by Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (dom@w3.org) on an original design by Michael Sperberg-McQueen $Id: showv.php3,v 1.124 2014-10-06 13:46:23 dom Exp $. Please send bug reports and request for enhancements to dom@w3.org with w3t-sys@w3.org copied (if your mail client supports it, send mail directly to the right persons)