The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: firstname.lastname@example.org
This questionnaire was open from 2011-06-30 to 2011-07-15.
19 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
|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|
|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|
|Char James-Tanny||I abstain (not vote)|
|Sandi Wassmer||I abstain (not vote)|
|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 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|
Which revision of the page do these comments apply to? The revision date is after "Editors' Draft updated:" right under heading level 1.
|updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $||16|
|Other Date, included in Date field below.||1|
(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)
|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 Henry||updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $|
|Helle Bjarnø||updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $|
|Jason Bell||updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $|
|Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo||updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $|
|Denis Boudreau||updated: $Date: 2011/06/28 $|
(remember to include priority, location, suggested revision, and rationale for each comment.)
|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.|
|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.
|Vicki Menezes Miller||Priority: low|
Location: Executive summary, first paragraph, second sentence
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.
Location: Executive Summary, Fragmentation bullet points
- 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
Location: Executive Summary, Harmonization bullet points 2 and 5
- 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
Location: "Fragmentation Concerns...", second paragraph, last two sentences.
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>
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.
|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):
|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
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 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.|
|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.|
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
Send an email to all the non-responders.