W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire EOWG Review: Standards Harmonization doc (final)

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: jbrewer@w3.org

This questionnaire was open from 2011-06-30 to 2011-07-15.

19 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Support for publishing this page
Version
Comments

1. Support for publishing this page

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
I support publishing this as page as is	4
I support publishing this page; however, I suggest the changes in the comments section below (for editors' discretion)	5
I support publishing this page only with the changes indicated as [important to be addressed before publication] in the comments section below
I do not support publishing this page because of the comments indicated as [important to be addressed before publication] in the comments section below	1
I abstain (not vote)	9

Details

Responder	Support for publishing this page
Cliff Tyllick	I abstain (not vote)
Karl Groves	I support publishing this as page as is
Jennifer Sutton	I support publishing this page; however, I suggest the changes in the comments section below (for editors' discretion)
Sylvie Duchateau	I support publishing this page; however, I suggest the changes in the comments section below (for editors' discretion)
Wayne Dick	I support publishing this as page as is
Vicki Menezes Miller	I support publishing this page; however, I suggest the changes in the comments section below (for editors' discretion)
Liam McGee	I support publishing this page; however, I suggest the changes in the comments section below (for editors' discretion)
Char James-Tanny	I abstain (not vote)
Sandi Wassmer	I abstain (not vote)
Sharron Rush	I support publishing this page; however, I suggest the changes in the comments section below (for editors' discretion)
Ian Pouncey	I abstain (not vote)
Shadi Abou-Zahra	I do not support publishing this page because of the comments indicated as [important to be addressed before publication] in the comments section below
Andrew Arch	I abstain (not vote)
Shawn Lawton Henry	I abstain (not vote)
Helle Bjarnø	I abstain (not vote)
Jack Welsh	I abstain (not vote)
Jason Bell	I abstain (not vote)
Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo	I support publishing this as page as is
Denis Boudreau	I support publishing this as page as is

2. Version

Which revision of the page do these comments apply to? The revision date is after "Editors' Draft updated:" right under heading level 1.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $	16
Other Date, included in Date field below.	1

Details

Responder	Version	Date
Cliff Tyllick
Karl Groves	updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $
Jennifer Sutton	updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $
Sylvie Duchateau	updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $
Wayne Dick	Other Date, included in Date field below.	This looks good. No more adjustments needed.
Vicki Menezes Miller	updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $
Liam McGee	updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $
Char James-Tanny	updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $
Sandi Wassmer	updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $
Sharron Rush	updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $
Ian Pouncey	updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $
Shadi Abou-Zahra	updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $
Andrew Arch	updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $
Shawn Lawton Henry	updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $
Helle Bjarnø	updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $
Jack Welsh
Jason Bell	updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $
Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo	updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $
Denis Boudreau	updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $

3. Comments

(remember to include priority, location, suggested revision, and rationale for each comment.)

Details

Responder	Comments
Cliff Tyllick	I firmly believe that all documents produced by the W3C should be in plain language. Apparently we (the EOWG) must specify up front, document by document, when we want that standard to be met. I will work to make sure we do so on all future proposals.
Karl Groves
Jennifer Sutton	Sorry for a double submission. I missed one of the radio buttons, but there are no changes below. Neither of these comments needs to be discussed on tomorrow's call. There are two comments. See notes in brackets. 1. In this sentence, should there be a link? "It is a right under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities." 2. "In all of these cases, the divergent standards [JS: change makes to make] conformance difficult for content creators and Web developers, especially those who also need to comply with existing international standards." JS: "the . . . standards make" Or, maybe you mean "the divergence of standards makes"
Sylvie Duchateau	1. Priority: medium: editor's discretion Location: page title (<title></title>) Current wording: "Why Standards Harmonization is Essential for Web" Suggested revision: Why Standards Harmonization is Essential for Web Accessibility. Rationale: although I understand that this title should not be too long, I suggest that the word accessibility be included in it to help better get it referenced by search engines. Question: h1 says essential to Web accessibility and page title says "essential for Web". Is it editor's intention or mistake? Is there a big difference between essential for and essential to? ------ 2. Priority: medium, editor's discretion. Location: executive summary, first sentence. I agree with Jennifers comment on the complexity of this first sentence and approve her rewording. Moreover, I have the same question as Helle: should we say standard or standards? ------- 3. Priority: medium edit question. Location: all document. Current wording: several times the document talks about "accessibility of the Web". Most WAI document talk about "Web accessibility". Proposed change: harmonize and replace "accessibility of the Web" by "Web accessibility". Rationale: this proposal is shorter (2 words instead of 4) and more current in WAI documents. ------- 4. Priority, medium: editor's discretion. Location: introduction, fourth bullet of the list summarizing the four key principles. Current wording: "To make Web content robust, and maximize compatibility with current and future user tools." Proposed change: "To make Web content robust, maximize compatibility with current and future user tools." Rationale: I wonder if the word "and" is not too much, as it is not present in the three other sentences summarising the principles. ------ 5. Priority low: edit question, editor's discretion. Location: all document. (also sent to editor' list as I don't know if it needed to be discussed at eo.) Current wording: through the document one finds the following term written differently: policy-makers and policy makers. Suggested revision: harmonize.
Wayne Dick
Vicki Menezes Miller	Priority: low Location: Executive summary, first paragraph, second sentence Suggested revision: In doing so, these governments have accelerated overall progress on Web accessibility. Rationale: removed "established a consistent business environment" since it is too vague. It also makes the paragraph a little shorter. Priority: Low Location: Executive Summary, Fragmentation bullet points Suggested revision: - governments must spend more to develop alternate versions of training and technical support materials Rationale: To shorten the executive summary. What is currently in this bullet (more detailed examples of educational material) could be moved to the relevant (first) bullet point under the "Fragmentation Concerns..." heading Priority: Low Location: Executive Summary, Harmonization bullet points 2 and 5 Suggested revision: - governments can save funds by using freely available standards and supporting resources (i.e., delete "leaving more funds to be devoted to local education and implementation needs"). - governments can take advantage of collaborative maintenance of standards and educational resources Rationale: the information is repeated in the bullet points later on and, in this way, the executive summary becomes slightly shorter Priority: Low Location: "Fragmentation Concerns...", second paragraph, last two sentences. Suggested revision: Changing the wording of individual provisions of WCAG can result in unintentionally changing the technical meaning of the provision. Conformance, thus, becomes difficult for content creators and Web developers etc... Rationale: makes it a little shorter and to the point
Liam McGee	priority: high location: page contents menu issue: last link (_Using W3C/WAI Standards) not working due to lack of <a name="steps" id="steps" ... surrounding the <h2>Using W3C/WAI Standards and Supporting Resources</h2> priority: low location: Using W3C/WAI Standards and Supporting Resources: Engage with stakeholders suggested revision: change the character — to the entity &emdash; rationale: I think should really use the entity not the character, just to be on the safe side. But I may be wrong on this, it cetrainly validates as it is.
Char James-Tanny	None.
Sandi Wassmer
Sharron Rush	I have some reservations about the document in its current state but primarily I am concerned that I have not had the time needed to read it carefully and make the specific comments that might be helpful. It has just not been a good time for me to carve out the attention this paper deserves. I think this is an extremely important piece and would urge us to take another round of review. The tone is right and I have no objections to the vocabulary and general approach - I think it is good and has been greatly improved. It makes the points that need to be made and provides rationale that will be helpful to advocates. It should be sharper and more focused, however, but since I have not been able to craft specific comments, I will defer to the judgement of the rest of the group. I only urge more time if it is at all possible.
Ian Pouncey	As I've mentioned on calls discussing this document, I think it lacks a good case study to go with it. There are lots of 'mays' and 'musts', and although overall I think its assertions are probably correct, it lacks supporting evidence. There is an element of bad timing unfortunately, as the release of the updated Quebec standards, and which arguably do not follow the advice of this document, have broadly been accepted as a success. For this reason I have chosen to abstain. If the wider group does not find this a problem then I bow to their wisdom.
Shadi Abou-Zahra	Overall I think that this document has improved very much and contains many important messages. I think that it is close to being done but needs at least one more round of revision before being ready for publishing. In particular, I think that the executive summary can and should be further shortened, and I would feel more comfortable having a chance to review the changes made before publication. Here are the comments in detail (did not fit into the WBS): - <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-eo-editors/2011Jul/0002.html>
Andrew Arch	Priority: Important to be addressed Location: Exec Summary Current wording: too long and repetitive Rationale: The Exec Summary is still too long in my opinion and repeats all the arguments in the main part of the document, rather than listing the most important or sumarising right down. Priority: strong suggestion for editors' discretion Location: Exec Summary, para 1 Suggestion: change “some governments develop multiple divergent standards” to “some governments develop divergent standards” (drop ‘multiple’) Rationale: current wording suggests that individual governments develop multiple divergent standards – not sensible Priority: strong suggestion Location: Exec Summary Current wording: swapping the first two paras would improve the flow of the arguments. Rationale: Explain accessibility first, then developing policy, then moving on to fragmentation/harmonisation args Priority: Editorial Location: all through Current wording: ... Web accessibility ... & ... Web policy ... etc Suggested wording: ... web accessibility ... & ... web policy ... etc. In other words, “web” is always lower case except where referring to “the Web” Rationale: WAI editorial instruction a couple of years ago Priority: Editor’s discretion Location: Introduction, para 1 Suggestion: link “United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities” to article 9 of the UN CRPD Priority: Editor’s discretion Location: Introduction, Para 3 Suggestion: change “disabilities can interact with the Web” to “disabilities can access and interact with the Web” Priority: Editor’s discretion Location: Introduction, 4th Para, 4th bullet Suggestion: change “To make Web content robust, and maximize compatibility with current and future user tools” to “To make Web content robust, maximize compatibility with current and future user tools” Rationale: the first 3 bullets say “to make web content xx, do yy”. Currently the 4th bullet is different from this pattern Priority: strong suggestion for editors' discretion Location: Intro; Fragmentation; Harmonisation sections Suggestion: reduce the amount of bolding – do we really need it on every para and every bullet? Rationale: Excessive use of bolding/emphasis reduces readability. Bullets already used to improve skimming – maybe drop bolding/emphasis from all bullets.
Shawn Lawton Henry	The document has come a long way and has a lot of good information. It needs more time for thoughtful and open discussion with the opportunity to make changes -- even if significant -- before it can be a truly "consensed" WAI document. Sidenote: I do not agree with some of the dispositions to my comments in the attachment with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-eo-editors/2011Jun/0007.html yet I do not see that they can be adequately addressed in the current situation. Given the unique constraints and the issues with the document's development, probably it is best to call this an Editor's Draft, and then come back to it at a later time when there are resources and the appropriate situation to bring it through the normal EOWG process that gives sufficient consideration of the various perspectives. I support publishing the document as an Editor's Draft after consideration of the comments in this form (WBS). I do not support publishing it with any other status.
Helle Bjarnø	After having read the other comments I have to change my support to abstain. I support the comments re. the executive summary and agree that it would be better to spent some more time refining it or do as Shawn suggest and call it an Editor's draft and then come back to do some more editing when people have the time.
Jack Welsh
Jason Bell	There are parts of the documents structure and content that I have some issues with but since I am new to the group and relatively new to this document I don't feel as though am in a position to sufficiently critique it or more importantly suggest alternatives. For that reason I would prefer to abstain at this moment in time.
Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo
Denis Boudreau	Totally supporting the version as is. However, as discussed this morning, curious to see what the next version would be like structuring the first sections with a series of h3s.

More details on responses

Cliff Tyllick: last responded on 30, June 2011 at 19:36 (UTC)
Karl Groves: last responded on 30, June 2011 at 22:12 (UTC)
Jennifer Sutton: last responded on 1, July 2011 at 00:53 (UTC)
Sylvie Duchateau: last responded on 1, July 2011 at 12:22 (UTC)
Wayne Dick: last responded on 1, July 2011 at 12:52 (UTC)
Vicki Menezes Miller: last responded on 4, July 2011 at 21:18 (UTC)
Liam McGee: last responded on 6, July 2011 at 16:50 (UTC)
Char James-Tanny: last responded on 11, July 2011 at 18:44 (UTC)
Sandi Wassmer: last responded on 11, July 2011 at 20:36 (UTC)
Sharron Rush: last responded on 12, July 2011 at 01:21 (UTC)
Ian Pouncey: last responded on 12, July 2011 at 14:09 (UTC)
Shadi Abou-Zahra: last responded on 12, July 2011 at 23:18 (UTC)
Andrew Arch: last responded on 13, July 2011 at 05:17 (UTC)
Shawn Lawton Henry: last responded on 13, July 2011 at 05:25 (UTC)
Helle Bjarnø: last responded on 13, July 2011 at 13:02 (UTC)
Jack Welsh: last responded on 13, July 2011 at 15:01 (UTC)
Jason Bell: last responded on 13, July 2011 at 15:26 (UTC)
Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo: last responded on 15, July 2011 at 12:11 (UTC)
Denis Boudreau: last responded on 16, July 2011 at 03:52 (UTC)