W3C WBS Home

Results of Questionnaire AUWG Survey for 17 October 2011

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2011-10-14 to 2011-10-25.

9 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. New AUWG teleconference time?
  2. A.2.1.2 Keyboard Trap Proposal
  3. Defined term: Irreversible--> "Non-reversible"
  4. A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Information
  5. Defined term: Preview
  6. Added note on term: Programmatically determined:

1. New AUWG teleconference time?

summary | by responder | by choice

We have a request to move the teleconference time to earlier in the day. The current time is the 3rd option (Mondays: 16:00-17:00).

Please check all the times that work for you. There is a comment field for any additional information.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Mondays: 14:00-15:00 EST (Boston) 7
Mondays: 14:30-15:30 EST (Boston) 3
Mondays: 16:00-17:00 (Existing time) 4

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder New AUWG teleconference time? Comments
Jan Richards
  • Mondays: 14:00-15:00 EST (Boston)
  • Mondays: 14:30-15:30 EST (Boston)
  • Mondays: 16:00-17:00 (Existing time)
Frederick Boland
  • Mondays: 14:00-15:00 EST (Boston)
the first two are the same.. prefer earlier in the day but can live with current time
Alessandro Miele
  • Mondays: 14:00-15:00 EST (Boston)
Alastair Campbell
  • Mondays: 14:00-15:00 EST (Boston)
I would rather have 12 or 1pm (5/6pm UK time), so that I could finish before getting too hungry... but an earlier time would be better anyway.
Sueann Nichols
  • Mondays: 14:00-15:00 EST (Boston)
Jeanne F Spellman
  • Mondays: 14:00-15:00 EST (Boston)
  • Mondays: 14:30-15:30 EST (Boston)
  • Mondays: 16:00-17:00 (Existing time)
I prefer earlier times.
Greg Pisocky
  • Mondays: 14:00-15:00 EST (Boston)
  • Mondays: 14:30-15:30 EST (Boston)
Given a choice, I would prefer either of the 2 earlier times.
Alex Li
  • Mondays: 16:00-17:00 (Existing time)
first two options conflicts with regularly scheduled meetings.
Cherie Ekholm
  • Mondays: 16:00-17:00 (Existing time)

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
Mondays: 14:00-15:00 EST (Boston)
  • Jan Richards
  • Frederick Boland
  • Alessandro Miele
  • Alastair Campbell
  • Sueann Nichols
  • Jeanne F Spellman
  • Greg Pisocky
Mondays: 14:30-15:30 EST (Boston)
  • Jan Richards
  • Jeanne F Spellman
  • Greg Pisocky
Mondays: 16:00-17:00 (Existing time)
  • Jan Richards
  • Jeanne F Spellman
  • Alex Li
  • Cherie Ekholm

2. A.2.1.2 Keyboard Trap Proposal

email

Proposed:
2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap: If keyboard focus can be moved to a component using a keyboard interface, then focus can be moved away from that component using only a keyboard interface, and, if it requires more than unmodified arrow or tab keys or other standard exit methods, authors are advised of the method for moving focus away. (Level A)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 8
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 1

Details

Responder A.2.1.2 Keyboard Trap ProposalComments on A.2.1.2
Jan Richards Accept the proposal As long as everyone is ok with "advised" meaning that the keystroke is noted in the documentation.
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Alex Li Accept the proposal
Cherie Ekholm Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group If you convolute the grammar any more on this, no keyboard will be able to keep up.

3. Defined term: Irreversible--> "Non-reversible"

Proposed:
proposal in the latest draft

The opposite of reversible actions are: irreversible actions non-reversible:PROPOSAL-REF Actions that cannot be reversed and may include certain save and delete actions as well as actions made in a collaborative environment that another author has begun to work with.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 4
Recommend changes (see comments field) 2
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) 2
Disagree with the proposal 1
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

Details

Responder Defined term: Irreversible--> "Non-reversible"Irreversable actions
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Recommend changes (see comments field) NB: The title in of the definition is somewhat confusing (duplicated), can we separate the duplication?

E.g. "Irreversible actions / Non-reversible: Actions that cannot..."
Sueann Nichols The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) Not sure I understand the issues with working in a collaborative environment and the ability to undo. It seems there are some absolutes that can be applied to the ability to reverse and action. If the action has some how permanently over -written the user's data. But I don't understand how to determine the applicability and testability of the last criteria.
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Recommend changes (see comments field) The opposite of reversible actions are irreversible or non- reversible actions. These are actions which cannot be undone and thus the system cannot be returned to the state it was in immediately prior to initiating the action. Actions that are irreversible or non reversible may include certain save and delete actions as well as actions made in a collaborative environment involving multiple authors.

Rationale for change:

(original has you defining the term and its negation using the same term "reversible". But in the definition for Reversible it is done correctly, Reversible actions are actions that can be completely undone....
Alex Li The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) The term "reversible action" does not even exist in ATAG. Why would the glassary contain definition of term that does not even exist?

Also, save is not an authoring action. Why do we have save added here is irreversible when none of the reversible SC A4.1.x applies to save? This is very misleading.

Agree that some collaboration scenarios makes reversing authoring action impossible, for example when your team members overwrite your work before you can reverse. But if you look at authoring from the team's, instead of an individual author's, perspective, it may be okay.

This item does not look ready for consensus.
Cherie Ekholm Disagree with the proposal The wording here is just bad language - the "and may include" should be changed to "such as".
"Actions that cannot be reversed such as certain save and delete actions as well as ..."

4. A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Information

proposal email

Proposed:
A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Information: If an editing-view highlights parts of the content being edited to indicate information about the content (e.g. an underline indicating a spelling error), then the information being indicated can be programmatically determined

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
Recommend changes (see comments field) 1
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group 2

Details

Responder A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status InformationComments on A.2.2.1
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group can be programattically determined or shall be programatically determined?
Alex Li Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group The term "information" seems far too sweeping.
Cherie Ekholm Recommend changes (see comments field) Why is "editing-view" hyphenated? No reason for it. Also need to add something here to indicate that the editing view is doing the highlighting automatically as part of the editing function, not as part of a user action.

5. Defined term: Preview

definition in latest draft

Proposed:
previews: Views in which none of the content is editable. Often the purpose is to present content as it would to appear to end-users of user agents. In these cases, previews may be implemented using existing user agents or they may only attempt to emulate some user agent functionality.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 5
Recommend changes (see comments field) 1
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group 3

Details

Responder Defined term: PreviewComments on App Note B.3
Jan Richards Accept the proposal GRAMMAR: previews: Views in which none of the content is editable. Often the purpose of previews is to present content as it would appear to end-users of user agents. In these cases, previews may be implemented using existing user agents or they may only attempt to emulate some user agent functionality.
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal NB: "User agent" is singular in the draft, plural here (correctly).
Sueann Nichols Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Recommend changes (see comments field) replace "may only" with "can"
Alex Li Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group Note that some content can be highly interactive in preview mode, which may push the definition of what is considered "editable" or "changable".
Cherie Ekholm Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

6. Added note on term: Programmatically determined:

proposal email

Proposed:
Note: All of the success criteria requiring programmatic determinability via a platform accessibility service are all contingent on whether a platform accessibility service is present for the platform and whether the platform accessibility service is capable of supporting the required communication.

Summary

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

Details

Responder Added note on term: Programmatically determined:Comments on A.2.2.1
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Alex Li The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) In that case, let's make it clear that it is not the responsibility of an authoring tool to remediate when a platform is not capable of supporting accessibility service.
Cherie Ekholm Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

More details on responses

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Jutta Treviranus <jtreviranus@faculty.ocadu.ca>
  2. Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
  3. Roberto Scano <w3c-rep@iwanet.org>
  4. Andrew Ronksley <andrew.ronksley@rnib.org.uk>
  5. 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)