W3C WBS Home

Results of Questionnaire AUWG Survey for 24 October 2011

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2011-10-24 to 2011-11-08.

5 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. reversible actions
  2. term "authoring action" in to the preview defn note
  3. programmatically determined
  4. A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Information

1. reversible actions

Jan's email with additional background

Proposed:
My proposal is to roll the term "reversible action" into "authoring action" in the glossary and try and simplify the SCs. NOTE - developers determine what these are by providing "undo" for them.

authoring action
Any action that authors can take using the authoring tool user interface that results in editing web content (e.g., typing text, deleting, inserting an element, applying a template). In contrast, most authoring tool user interfaces also enable actions that do not edit content (e.g., saving, publishing, setting preferences, viewing documentation).

- A reversible authoring action is an authoring action that can be immediately and completely undone by the authoring tool upon a cancel request by an author. Examples of cancel requests include: "cancel", "undo", and "redo" when it used to reverse "undo".

o Note: It is acceptable to collect a series of text entry actions (e.g., typed words, a series of backspaces) into a single reversible authoring action.

A.4.1.1 Content Changes Reversible (Minimum): Authoring actions are reversible authoring actions or the authoring tool requires author confirmation to proceed. (Level A)

A.4.1.2 Settings Change Confirmation: Mechanisms for changing authoring tool user interface settings can reverse the setting changes or the authoring tool requires author confirmation to proceed. (Level A)

A.4.1.3 Content Changes Reversible (Enhanced): Authors can sequentially reverse a series of reversible authoring actions. (Level AAA)

- Note: It is acceptable to clear the history at the end of authoring sessions.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 4
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

Details

Responder reversible actions reversible actions
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Recommend changes (see comments field) If there is a history or roll back option that should be included too
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal

2. term "authoring action" in to the preview defn note

Jan's email

Proposed:
previews:
Views in which none of the content is editable (i.e., no authoring actions are provided). Typically, 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 attempt to emulate some user agent functionality.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 5
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

Details

Responder term "authoring action" in to the preview defn notepreview definition
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal

3. programmatically determined

Jan's email

PROPOSED
programmatically determined (programmatically determinable):
Information that is encoded in a way that allows different software, including assistive technologies, to extract and present the information in different modalities. ATAG 2.0 uses this term in two contexts:

- Processing content: Whether the authoring tool is able to extract information from the web content (e.g., to extract the language of content from the markup).

- Communication between the authoring tool and assistive technology: For non-web-based user interfaces, this means making use of platform accessibility services, APIs, and, in some cases, document object models. For web-based user interfaces, this means ensuring that the user agent can pass on the information (e.g., through the use of ARIA).

o Note: In ATAG 2.0, some success criteria require authoring tools to make certain information programmatically determinable. In cases where the platform lacks a platform accessibility service, these success criteria are to be considered "not applicable". Conformance claims are optional, but any claim that is made must record the platform and the fact that the platform does not include a platform accessibility service.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 5
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

Details

Responder programmatically determinedprogrammatically determined
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal

4. A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Information

Jan's email

Proposed:
On the call we ran into disagreement with the A.2.2.1 proposal (repeated below):

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.

FIRST, I want to ask if the problem is with the wording or if there really is a question whether we should be requiring semantic encoding of indicators for things like: spelling errors, grammar errors, syntax errors, change tracking, etc.?

SECOND, I will propose a rewording that perhaps is less sweeping than "information":

A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Indicators: If an editing-view adds status indicators to the content being edited, then the status messages being indicated can be programmatically determined. Note: Status indicators may indicate errors (e.g. spelling errors), tracked changes, hidden elements, or other information.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 4
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.2.2.1 Editing-View Status InformationA.2.2.1
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Greg Pisocky Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal

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. Sueann Nichols <ssnichol@us.ibm.com>
  6. Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
  7. Alex Li <alli@microsoft.com>
  8. Cherie Ekholm <cheriee@exchange.microsoft.com>
  9. 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)