w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
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:
- New AUWG teleconference time?
- A.2.1.2 Keyboard Trap Proposal
- Defined term: Irreversible--> "Non-reversible"
- A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Information
- Defined term: Preview
- 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
| Choice | All 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 |
|
|
| Frederick Boland |
|
the first two are the same.. prefer earlier in the day but can live with current time |
| Alessandro Miele |
|
|
| Alastair Campbell |
|
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 |
|
|
| Jeanne F Spellman |
|
I prefer earlier times. |
| Greg Pisocky |
|
Given a choice, I would prefer either of the 2 earlier times. |
| Alex Li |
|
first two options conflicts with regularly scheduled meetings. |
| Cherie Ekholm |
|
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| Mondays: 14:00-15:00 EST (Boston) |
|
| Mondays: 14:30-15:30 EST (Boston) |
|
| Mondays: 16:00-17:00 (Existing time) |
|
2. A.2.1.2 Keyboard Trap Proposal
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
| Choice | All 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 Proposal | Comments 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
| Choice | All 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
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
| Choice | All 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 Information | 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 | 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
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
| Choice | All 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: Preview | Comments 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:
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
| Choice | All 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
- Jan Richards: last responded on 14, October 2011 at 19:25 (UTC)
- Frederick Boland: last responded on 14, October 2011 at 19:51 (UTC)
- Alessandro Miele: last responded on 17, October 2011 at 07:21 (UTC)
- Alastair Campbell: last responded on 17, October 2011 at 08:42 (UTC)
- Sueann Nichols: last responded on 17, October 2011 at 14:29 (UTC)
- Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 17, October 2011 at 17:35 (UTC)
- Greg Pisocky: last responded on 17, October 2011 at 18:10 (UTC)
- Alex Li: last responded on 17, October 2011 at 19:41 (UTC)
- Cherie Ekholm: last responded on 17, October 2011 at 20:04 (UTC)
Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.
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