W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Making Content Usable Wide Review

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2020-04-26 to 2020-05-13.

7 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Support COGA
  2. Audience
  3. Overall Structure
  4. Design Guide
  5. Relationship to WCAG
  6. Impact on Existing Documentation
  7. Wide Review

1. Support COGA

Does this document help support accessibility for people with cognitive and learning disabilities?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 6
Yes, with the following changes 1
No, for the following reasons

Details

Responder Support COGAComments
Lisa Seeman-Horwitz Yes
Patrick Lauke Yes
Laura Carlson Yes
Andrew Kirkpatrick Yes
Bruce Bailey Yes, with the following changes Yes, if most suggestions offered by David MacDonald are incorporated.

Note, I reviewed this version:
https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/responces-to-cfc-april-2020/content-usable/index.html

Seems to be quite similar, but not identical to, this version:
https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/changes-after-0327/content-usable/index.html

I think maybe we should wait for the Editors draft to show the 5 May date, which would be this URL:
https://w3c.github.io/coga/content-usable

I do not believe the differences are substantive enough to change my comments in this survey.
David MacDonald Yes
David Fazio Yes

2. Audience

Is this document relevant for web developers and designers?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 6
Yes, with the following changes 1
No, for the following reasons

Details

Responder AudienceComments
Lisa Seeman-Horwitz Yes
Patrick Lauke Yes
Laura Carlson Yes
Andrew Kirkpatrick Yes
Bruce Bailey Yes, with the following changes The abstract asserts to include "advice for policy makers" who, as a general rule, are neither web developers nor designers. I would like to see the intended audience clarified.
David MacDonald Yes
David Fazio Yes

3. Overall Structure

Is the overall structure and purpose of the document clear and useful?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 4
Yes, with the following changes 3
No, for the following reasons

Details

Responder Overall StructureComments
Lisa Seeman-Horwitz Yes
Patrick Lauke Yes
Laura Carlson Yes, with the following changes The title of the policy appendix seem prescriptive. Suggest changing "Appendix: Guidance for Policy Makers" to something such as "Considerations for People Involved in Policy Making" And restating that this advice is not normative.
Andrew Kirkpatrick Yes
Bruce Bailey Yes, with the following changes Glad to see "successful examples" replacing "sufficient examples".
I agree with David that "failure examples" should not use word "failure" since they are not "failure techniques" and it is too easy to confuse those.
David MacDonald Yes, with the following changes For each pattern there is a "Success" example and a "Failure" example.

I don't think we should have a "failure" example.
Instead call it "unsuccessful"

Success Example: Blah blah
Unsuccessful example: Blah blah

Rationale: it will be confused with a failure of WCAG. An author can't "fail" a note suggestion.
David Fazio Yes

4. Design Guide

Reviewing the guidance and advice given, does it seem clear and useful?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 4
Yes, with the following changes 2
No, for the following reasons

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Design GuideComments
Lisa Seeman-Horwitz Yes
Patrick Lauke Yes
Laura Carlson Yes
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Bruce Bailey Yes, with the following changes I agree with suggestions offered by David.
In general, the author CAUSING the barrier is different than the author CONTRIBUTING to the barrier.
David MacDonald Yes, with the following changes Here are some suggested edits, its a long document (over 200 pages printed) and I haven't reviewed it all yet:
======
CURRENT
... It gives advice on how to make content usable for people with learning and cognitive disabilities. ...

SUGGESTED
It gives advice on how to make content <add>more</add> usable for people with learning and cognitive disabilities.
=======
CURRENT
People with cognitive disabilities often use add-ons or extensions as assistive technology.

SUGGESTED
People with cognitive disabilities <remove>often<remove> <add>may</add> use add-ons or extensions as assistive technology.
======
CURRENT
People with cognitive and learning disabilities may not be able to effectively use web content because of the design and content choices of the author.

SUGGESTED
Design and content choices can impact usage in ways that make it difficult or impossible for some people with cognitive and learning disabilities.
=====
CURRENT
However, for users with cognitive and learning disabilities, these difficulties are likely to be persistent and significant, so that they are unable to access content and may be forced to abandon tasks, without any way to complete them unaided.

SUGGESTED
However, for users with cognitive and learning disabilities, these difficulties are likely to be persistent and significant, so that they may not be able to complete some of these tasks unaided.
======
CURRENT
People may also experience a co-occurrence of difficulties such as dyspraxia / developmental coordination difficulties and ADHD should also be taken into account.

SUGGESTED
People may also experience a co-occurrence of difficulties such as dyspraxia / developmental coordination difficulties. People with ADHD may also be helped by some of these techniques.
======
CURRENT
Accessibility has traditionally focused on the making the user interface usable for people with sensory and physical impairments in vision, hearing and/or mobility. Some accessibility features that help these user groups also help people with cognitive impairments. People with cognitive and learning disabilities also need improvements to context, language, usability, and other more general factors that impact everyone to some degree. As a result, they do not fit well into traditional accessibility standards.

SUGGESTED
There have been difficulties including requirements for people with cognitive disabilities in accessibility standards for the following reasons:
(1) Large variance of individual needs in multiple sub categories of user groups
(2) Lack of mature assistive technology for the consumption of web content by people with cognitive disabilities
(3) Lack of peer reviewed research for users with cognitive disabilities using the web
(4) Difficult to establish consistent test results from manual and/or automated evaluation
(4) Difficult to identify solutions that scale across technologies in multiple languages.
(5) People with cognitive and learning disabilities need improvements to context, language, usability, and other more general factors that impact everyone to some degree, and its difficult to measure the degree of disproportionate usability by people with cognitive disabilities and to test for these things.

As a result, some of the needs of people with cognitive disabilities do not fit well into accessibility standards. In WCAG 2 and 2.1 there are many Success Criteria that help people with cognitive disabilities but there are also some gaps due to the reasons above.

============

RATIONALE: I don't think we should compare disabilities against one another. It may be perceived as divisive by people in those groups.

See https://www.davidmacd.com/blog/wcag-for-low-vision-cognitive-disabilities.html for a list of things in WCAG 2.x that may help some people with Cognitive disabilities.
========


David Fazio Yes

5. Relationship to WCAG

Is the relationship of this informative guidance to WCAG normative guidance clear?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 1
Yes with the addition of the following to the abstract: "It can be considered a supplement to the WCAG accessibility guidelines." 2
Yes, with the following changes
No, for the following reasons 4

Details

Responder Relationship to WCAGComments
Lisa Seeman-Horwitz Yes with the addition of the following to the abstract: "It can be considered a supplement to the WCAG accessibility guidelines." Note we have a version with clarifications at https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/responces-to-cfc-april-2020/content-usable/index.html
Patrick Lauke Yes with the addition of the following to the abstract: "It can be considered a supplement to the WCAG accessibility guidelines."
Laura Carlson No, for the following reasons Agree with David MacDonald's comments.
Andrew Kirkpatrick No, for the following reasons This needs to be clarified substantially.
Bruce Bailey No, for the following reasons I would like the prose to be clear that this document is not an extension to WCAG, at least not as that concept/term was used previously.

I find no reason to even mention WCAG in the abstract portion. It is not a supplement, and should be written as stand-alone document. The WCAG references in the main body content were fine as far as I could tell. But the many references to WCAG in the appendices need close review. For the FCPWD, my recommendation is that the appendices not be included directly.
David MacDonald No, for the following reasons I think we need to do a few things so that these recommendations don't become conflated with WCAG Requirements

1) Add a sentence near the top (probably in the status) something like, "This note is intended as helpful advice rather than an extension to WCAG requirements. Specifically, WCAG as a standard is independent of the suggestions in this document and this document has no impact on WCAG conformance.
2) In the "objective" sections, I don't think we should have links to Github WCAG pull requests and issues with all the comments and internal disagreements, etc... maybe move these SC proposals out.
3) There is a list of about 35 Success Criteria that were not included in WCAG 2.1 because they didn't meet WCAG acceptance criteria. I think these may need some sort of qualifier.
4) The table in "Guidance for policy makers" has WCAG Success Criteria acceptance characteristics status for these above 35 SCs which basically says every one of the SCs meets every one of the acceptance Criteria we had for 2.1. I suggest this table would need a full revision before inclusion https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/changes-after-0327/content-usable/index.html#appendix-guidance-for-policy-makers
David Fazio Yes

6. Impact on Existing Documentation

Does this document alter or conflict with existing W3C recommendations or policies?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 2
Yes, with the following changes 2
No, for the following reasons 3

Details

Responder Impact on Existing DocumentationComments
Lisa Seeman-Horwitz No, for the following reasons
Patrick Lauke No, for the following reasons Ideally, following on from point 6 Relationship to WCAG, this document should further clarify that it may go beyond what WCAG normatively requires, but that it is additive / on top of WCAG.
Laura Carlson Yes, with the following changes The document should clarify that it may go beyond what WCAG normatively requires.
Andrew Kirkpatrick Yes Section on advice for policy makers is problematic.
Bruce Bailey Yes FWIW, the survey choices for this question do not quite make sense to me.

Recommend deleting Appendix C unless it radically updated.
Editors note currently reads: "This table needs to be updated and needs further review". I agree. It is too rough to go out as FCPWD.
https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/responces-to-cfc-april-2020/content-usable/index.html#h-ednote-1

At the very least, four of the five columns are not variable. Those four columns of data could/should be a bullet list!
David MacDonald Yes, with the following changes think we need to:
1) Make edits listed above.
2) provide clear language that states the relationship with WCAG up front that it doesn't add to the requirements WCAG
3) Remove links to WCAG Github issues and pull requests
4) remove or amend the table which says all the previously unaccepted WCAG SCs meet all the SC Acceptance criteria
5) Change titles of "Failure Example" to "Unsuccessful Example"
David Fazio No, for the following reasons It clearly bridges a gap

7. Wide Review

While it is not part of the note process, COGA would like to open this document to a wider public review before we finalize it. Are you comfortable with this document moving forward to a wide review under the banner of the Working Group?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes, move to wide review 3
Yes, with the following changes 3
No, for the following reasons 1

Details

Responder Wide ReviewComments
Lisa Seeman-Horwitz Yes, move to wide review
Patrick Lauke Yes, move to wide review
Laura Carlson Yes, with the following changes Agree to move to wide review after the Working Group's comments have been addressed.
Andrew Kirkpatrick Yes, with the following changes Clarification of relationship to WCAG
Discussion of guidance to policy makers appendix
Bruce Bailey No, for the following reasons I would like to see this document under wider public review under the banner of the coga task force.
David MacDonald Yes, with the following changes I think it needs a full editorial pass as mentioned above.
David Fazio Yes, move to wide review

More details on responses

  • Lisa Seeman-Horwitz: last responded on 1, May 2020 at 05:36 (UTC)
  • Patrick Lauke: last responded on 3, May 2020 at 21:59 (UTC)
  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 4, May 2020 at 19:34 (UTC)
  • Andrew Kirkpatrick: last responded on 5, May 2020 at 15:22 (UTC)
  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 5, May 2020 at 20:07 (UTC)
  • David MacDonald: last responded on 6, May 2020 at 17:46 (UTC)
  • David Fazio: last responded on 13, May 2020 at 18:21 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Gregg Vanderheiden
  2. Chris Wilson
  3. Janina Sajka
  4. Shawn Lawton Henry
  5. Katie Haritos-Shea
  6. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  7. Chus Garcia
  8. Steve Faulkner
  9. Gez Lemon
  10. Makoto Ueki
  11. Peter Korn
  12. Preety Kumar
  13. Georgios Grigoriadis
  14. Stefan Schnabel
  15. Romain Deltour
  16. Chris Blouch
  17. Jedi Lin
  18. Jeanne F Spellman
  19. Wilco Fiers
  20. Kimberly Patch
  21. Glenda Sims
  22. Ian Pouncey
  23. Alastair Campbell
  24. Léonie Watson
  25. David Sloan
  26. Mary Jo Mueller
  27. John Kirkwood
  28. Detlev Fischer
  29. Reinaldo Ferraz
  30. Matt Garrish
  31. Mike Gifford
  32. Loïc Martínez Normand
  33. Mike Pluke
  34. Justine Pascalides
  35. Chris Loiselle
  36. Tzviya Siegman
  37. Jan McSorley
  38. Sailesh Panchang
  39. Cristina Mussinelli
  40. Jonathan Avila
  41. John Rochford
  42. Sarah Horton
  43. Sujasree Kurapati
  44. Jatin Vaishnav
  45. Sam Ogami
  46. Kevin White
  47. E.A. Draffan
  48. Paul Bohman
  49. JaEun Jemma Ku
  50. 骅 杨
  51. Victoria Clark
  52. Avneesh Singh
  53. Mitchell Evan
  54. Michael Gower
  55. biao liu
  56. Scott McCormack
  57. Denis Boudreau
  58. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  59. Francis Storr
  60. Rick Johnson
  61. David Swallow
  62. Aparna Pasi
  63. Gregorio Pellegrino
  64. Melanie Philipp
  65. Jake Abma
  66. Nicole Windmann
  67. Oliver Keim
  68. Gundula Niemann
  69. Ruoxi Ran
  70. Wendy Reid
  71. Scott O'Hara
  72. Charles Adams
  73. Muhammad Saleem
  74. Amani Ali
  75. Trevor Bostic
  76. Jamie Herrera
  77. Shinya Takami
  78. Karen Herr
  79. Kathy Eng
  80. Cybele Sack
  81. Audrey Maniez
  82. Jennifer Delisi
  83. Arthur Soroken
  84. Daniel Bjorge
  85. Kai Recke
  86. Daniel Montalvo
  87. Mario Chacón-Rivas
  88. Michael Gilbert
  89. Caryn Pagel
  90. Achraf Othman
  91. Helen Burge
  92. Fernanda Bonnin
  93. Jared Batterman
  94. Raja Kushalnagar
  95. Jan Williams
  96. Todd Libby
  97. Isabel Holdsworth
  98. Julia Chen
  99. Marcos Franco Murillo
  100. Yutaka Suzuki
  101. Azlan Cuttilan
  102. Jennifer Strickland
  103. Joe Humbert
  104. Ben Tillyer
  105. Charu Pandhi
  106. Poornima Badhan Subramanian
  107. Alain Vagner
  108. Roberto Scano
  109. Rain Breaw Michaels
  110. Kun Zhang
  111. Jaunita George
  112. Regina Sanchez
  113. Shawn Thompson
  114. Thomas Brunet
  115. Kenny Dunsin
  116. Jen Goulden
  117. Mike Beganyi
  118. Ronny Hendriks
  119. Breixo Pastoriza Barcia
  120. Olivia Hogan-Stark
  121. Rashmi Katakwar
  122. Julie Rawe
  123. Duff Johnson
  124. Laura Miller
  125. Will Creedle
  126. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  127. Marie Csanady
  128. Meenakshi Das
  129. Perrin Anto
  130. Stephanie Louraine
  131. Rachele DiTullio
  132. Jan Jaap de Groot
  133. Rebecca Monteleone
  134. Ian Kersey
  135. Peter Bossley
  136. Anastasia Lanz
  137. Michael Keane
  138. Chiara De Martin
  139. Giacomo Petri
  140. Andrew Barakat
  141. Devanshu Chandra
  142. Xiao (Helen) Zhou
  143. Bryan Trogdon
  144. Mary Ann (MJ) Jawili
  145. 禹佳 陶
  146. 锦澄 王
  147. Stephen James
  148. Jay Mullen
  149. Thorsten Katzmann
  150. Tony Holland
  151. Kent Boucher
  152. Abbey Davis
  153. Phil Day
  154. Julia Kim
  155. Michelle Lana
  156. David Williams
  157. Mikayla Thompson
  158. Catherine Droege
  159. James Edwards
  160. Eric Hind
  161. Quintin Balsdon
  162. Mario Batušić
  163. David Cox
  164. Sazzad Mahamud
  165. Katy Brickley
  166. Kimberly Sarabia
  167. Corey Hinshaw
  168. Ashley Firth
  169. Daniel Harper-Wain
  170. Kiara Stewart
  171. DJ Chase
  172. Suji Sreerama
  173. Lori Oakley
  174. David Middleton
  175. Alyssa Priddy
  176. Young Choi
  177. Nichole Bui
  178. Julie Romanowski
  179. Eloisa Guerrero
  180. Daniel Henderson-Ede
  181. George Kuan
  182. YAPING LIN
  183. Justin Wilson
  184. Tiffany Burtin
  185. Shane Dittmar
  186. Nayan Padrai
  187. Niamh Kelly
  188. Matt Argomaniz Matthew Argomaniz
  189. Frankie Wolf
  190. Kimberly McGee
  191. Ahson Rana
  192. Carolina Crespo
  193. humor927 humor927
  194. Samantha McDaniel
  195. Matthäus Rojek
  196. Phong Tony Le
  197. Bram Janssens
  198. Graham Ritchie
  199. Aleksandar Cindrikj
  200. Jeroen Hulscher
  201. Alina Vayntrub
  202. Marco Sabidussi
  203. John Toles
  204. Jeanne Erickson Cooley
  205. Theo Hale
  206. Gert-Jan Vercauteren
  207. Karla Rubiano
  208. Aashutosh K
  209. Hidde de Vries
  210. Julian Kittelson-Aldred
  211. Roland Buss
  212. Aditya Surendranath
  213. Avon Kuo
  214. Elizabeth Patrick
  215. Nat Tarnoff
  216. Filippo Zorzi
  217. Mike Pedersen
  218. Rachael Yomtoob
  219. Oliver Habersetzer

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

Report issues on GitHub project w3c/wbs-design or by mail to sysreq.