w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire UAWG Survey for 2 June 2011
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email addresses: w3c-archive@w3.org, jeanne@w3.org
This questionnaire was open from 2011-06-02 to 2011-06-10.
4 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
1. Comments from Suzanne Taylor
From the email comments received from Suzanne Taylor on "5.3 designed to include WAI-ARIA and warnings/error messages". Suzanne has proposed splitting 5.3.1 and then adding additional success criteria to 5.3.
Jeanne note: I don't see a difference between what is current and what she proposed here, but I'm including it in case someone else spots a change.
Current
Guideline 5.3 (former 1.3) Support accessibility features of technologies.
Summary: Implement the accessibility features of all the technologies you're using, such as supporting the platform's multitasking capabilities, HTML's alt attribute for images, and document your implementation.
Proposed
Guideline 5.3 Support accessibility features of technologies.
Summary
Implement the accessibility features of all the technologies you're using, such as supporting the platform's multitasking capabilities, HTML's alt attribute for images, and document your implementation.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Accept the proposal | 1 |
| 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 | Comments from Suzanne Taylor | Comments 5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Jeanne F Spellman | Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group | |
| Jan Richards | Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group | Can't see a difference. |
| Jim Allan | Accept the proposal | |
| Greg Lowney | Recommend changes (see comments field) | Minor, but the summary's second comma should be replaced by "and", so that "and document your implementation" does not seem like a third inline example. |
2. 5.3.1
From the email comments received from Suzanne Taylor on "5.3 designed to include WAI-ARIA and warnings/error messages".
Current
5.3.1 (former 1.3.1) Accessibility Features: Implement and cite in the conformance claim the accessibility features of content and platform technology specifications. Accessibility features are those that are either (Level A) :
identified as such in the specification or
allow authors to satisfy a requirement of WCAG.
Proposed
5.3.1 (former 1.3.1) Accessibility Features: (suggesting separating content & platform SC)
Implement and cite in the conformance claim the accessibility features of content specifications. Accessibility features are those that are either (Level A) :
* identified as such in the specification or
* allow authors to satisfy a requirement of WCAG.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Accept the proposal | 1 |
| Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
| The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | 1 |
| Disagree with the proposal | 1 |
| Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group | 1 |
Details
| Responder | 5.3.1 | Comments 5.3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
| Jan Richards | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | Accessibility features of the user agent are how the features of the format get surfaced. BTW: At first I was confused by "allow authors to satisfy a requirement of WCAG."...I wonder if we might say something like: "can be depended on by authors in order for web content to meet WCAG 2.0" |
| Jim Allan | Disagree with the proposal | the only benefit of separating the content and platform features is that it would make the conformance claim easier to read... Platform x features implemented content features implemented Platform y features implemented etc UA developers could write the conformance claim this way to meet the current 5.3.1 |
| Greg Lowney | Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group | It looks like she meant to include an updated draft that split 3.5.1 into 3.5.1 dealing with content technology specifications and 3.5.2 dealing with platform technology specifications, but accidentally used the old language. Splitting them would make documentation, test plans and reports slightly simpler. |
3. 5.3.3
From the email comments received from Suzanne Taylor on "5.3 designed to include WAI-ARIA and warnings/error messages".
Current
none
Proposed
5.3.3 (former 1.3.1) Accessibility Features: (suggestion to include
specs like WAI-ARIA)
Implement and cite in the conformance claim W3C specifications designed to enhance accessibility of the content technology (e.g. WAI-ARIA) (Level AA)
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Accept the proposal | |
| Recommend changes (see comments field) | 1 |
| The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | 2 |
| Disagree with the proposal | 1 |
| Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Details
| Responder | 5.3.3 | Comments 5.3.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Jeanne F Spellman | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | I have a concern that we are confusing the issue by "W3C specifications designed to enhance accessibility of the content technology (e.g. WAI-ARIA)". I would rather see "implement and cite in the conformance claim how the user agent implements WAI-ARIA." But this makes WAI-ARIA a requirement of all user agents, and I am not sure if it applies to ALL user agents. |
| Jan Richards | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | If anything, this would be more relevant to ATAG. |
| Jim Allan | Disagree with the proposal | don't see that we need to specifically call out w3 specs that are implemented. this seems like a granular subset of 5.3.2. and should be written in the intent of 5.3.2 |
| Greg Lowney | Recommend changes (see comments field) | If we include this it should include the same two bullet items at 3.5.1 defining what are considered accessibility features. Plus they all need unique titles. |
4. 5.3.4
From the email comments received from Suzanne Taylor on "5.3 designed to include WAI-ARIA and warnings/error messages".
Current
none
Proposed
5.3.4 (former 1.3.1) Accessibility Features: (suggesting error reporting
for developers). If the user agent has an error console, include errors (e.g. missing
alt-text) related to the accessibility features of content
specifications. Accessibility features are those that are either (Level
A) :
* identified as such in the specification or
* allow authors to satisfy a requirement of WCAG.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Accept the proposal | 1 |
| Recommend changes (see comments field) | 1 |
| The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | |
| Disagree with the proposal | 1 |
| Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group | 1 |
Details
| Responder | 5.3.4 | Comments 5.3.4 |
|---|---|---|
| Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
| Jan Richards | Recommend changes (see comments field) | Perhaps at Level AAA. |
| Jim Allan | Disagree with the proposal | This seems to be more of an authoring tool feature. Though UA do have script error consoles and other types of debugging views, so a11y errors could be included in those. on reflection...the various developer and a11y toolbars (Wave and WAT) could meet this. I don't see this rising to the level of a must or should include in a UA to be accessible to users. |
| Greg Lowney | Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group | If we include it, it'd be easier to read if the inline example were moved to the end of the sentence. Plus they all need unique titles. |
5. 5.3.5
From the email comments received from Suzanne Taylor on "5.3 designed to include WAI-ARIA and warnings/error messages".
Current
none
Proposed
5.3.5 (former 1.3.1) Accessibility Features: (suggesting error & warning
reporting for developers)
Include warnings (e.g. role="application" has significant effects in
screen readers- link to ARIA info) and errors (e.g. missing alt-text)
related to the accessibility features of content specifications in a
developer view or error consol. Accessibility features are those that
are either (Level AA) :
* identified as such in the specification or
* allow authors to satisfy a requirement of WCAG.
Ideally, this would be part of general error and warning features, rather than a separate feature.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Accept the proposal | 1 |
| Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
| The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | 2 |
| Disagree with the proposal | 1 |
| Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Details
| Responder | 5.3.5 | Comments 5.3.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
| Jan Richards | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | Perhaps at AAA? This usage of a user agent is veering into ATAG territory. I wonder if this could be handled by an informative section on how user agents can be part of the authoring process and that browser developers should look at ATAG? |
| Jim Allan | Disagree with the proposal | This seems to be more of an authoring tool feature. Though UA do have script error consoles and other types of debugging views, so a11y errors could be included in those. on reflection...the various developer and a11y toolbars (Wave and WAT) could meet this. I don't see this rising to the level of a must or should include in a UA to be accessible to users. |
| Greg Lowney | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | Looks like a duplicate of the proposed 5.3.4? |
6. 5.3.6
From the email comments received from Suzanne Taylor on "5.3 designed to include WAI-ARIA and warnings/error messages".
Current
none
Proposed
5.3.6 (former 1.3.1) Accessibility Features: (suggesting separating
content & platform SC)
Implement and cite in the conformance claim the accessibility features
of platform technology
* identified as such in the specification or
* allow authors to satisfy a requirement of WCAG.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Accept the proposal | 1 |
| 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 |
(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | 5.3.6 | Comments 5.3.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
| Jan Richards | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | Not sure of the difference between content specifications and platform technology specifications. Is this in reference to MSAA etc.? |
| Jim Allan | ||
| Greg Lowney |
More details on responses
- Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 2, June 2011 at 14:43 (UTC)
- Jan Richards: last responded on 2, June 2011 at 14:47 (UTC)
- Jim Allan: last responded on 2, June 2011 at 16:43 (UTC)
- Greg Lowney: last responded on 2, June 2011 at 17:13 (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