W3C

Results of Questionnaire Making Content Usable Wide Review Second Survey

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2020-05-20 to 2020-06-02.

10 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Wide Review

1. Wide Review

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 4
Yes, with the following changes 5
No, for the following reasons 1

Details

Responder Wide ReviewComments
David MacDonald Yes, with the following changes The suggested edits I provided in the previous survey were partially implemented but not substantially. If they were adopted it would have addressed my concerns. However, with only minor adoption of the edits, I remain concerned that this document will be perceived as fully vetted by the working group. During 2.1 these patterns were presented as SCs. The WG determined that they could not be included in the normative standard. So without the edits I suggested, I believe it may be confusing that we are now presenting these patterns as a "supplement" to WCAG. I'm afraid some jurisdictions will take that as a signal to require them in law and policy. Here's another example:

"...The Objectives and Patterns presented here supplement the Success Criteria presented in the WCAG accessibility guidelines and address those user needs that are not fully met in accessibility guidelines...."

Definition of "supplement" = something that completes or enhances something else when added to it. This may be interpreted as a WCAG Extension.

How about this:

"...The Objectives and Patterns presented here are not intended to replace or add requirements to the WCAG accessibility guidelines. They are patterns that could not be included in the normative WCAG 2.x specification and are intended as advice to help address user needs that may not be met otherwise..."

I want to see these patterns out there and read, but I'm nervous about them being presented as a WG note without clear light of day between this document and the normative document.
Lisa Seeman-Horwitz Yes, move to wide review To me the changes are the borderline of what is acceptable as a compromise.
Laura Carlson Yes, with the following changes Agree with David's suggested text to change the current:

"...The Objectives and Patterns presented here supplement the Success Criteria presented in the WCAG accessibility guidelines and address those user needs that are not fully met in accessibility guidelines...."

To something such as:

"...The Objectives and Patterns presented here are not intended to replace or add requirements to the WCAG accessibility guidelines. They are patterns that could not be included in the normative WCAG 2.x specification and are intended as advice to help address user needs that may not be met otherwise..."
Bruce Bailey Yes, with the following changes Please incorporate David or Laura suggested edit per this survey.
Abi James Yes, move to wide review
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Yes, move to wide review The COGA taskforce suggests the following wording change to address David and Laura's comments about "supplement":

ORIGINAL: "...The Objectives and Patterns presented here supplement the Success Criteria presented in the WCAG accessibility guidelines and address those user needs that are not fully met in accessibility guidelines...."

PROPOSED CHANGE: "The Objectives and resulting Patterns presented here are not intended to replace or add requirements to the WCAG accessibility guidelines. Rather, they are intended to address user needs that may not otherwise be met so that more people with disabilities can use websites and applications. This guidance is not included in the current normative WCAG 2.x specification. "



Below is a list of David's suggested changes from the previous review and what was done to address them. Since the changes were not always identical to the suggestions, it may be easier to review them together in a list. Items that were not changed after discussion at COGA are preceded by an *.

1. SUGGESTION: 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"
CHANGE: Changed examples to Do or Don't

2. 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.
*CHANGE: This change was not made as COGA was concerned that softening the langauge in this way plays into the implicit bias that the barriers for people with cognitive disabilities are lower than those for people with other disabilities.

3. 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.
*CHANGE: This change was not made as COGA felt the language was factually accurate since the add-ons include spell checkers and other common technology.

4. 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.
CHANGE: Changed this to "Poor design, structure and language choices can make content inaccessible to people with learning disabilities.

5. 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.
CHANGE: Changed this to: " However, for users with cognitive and learning disabilities, these difficulties are likely to be persistent and significant. As a result, they could be unable to access content and complete these tasks independently."

6. 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.
CHANGE: Changed this to: "People may also experience more than one type of cognitive and learning disability."

7. 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.
CHANGE: Similar wording was in two places. We removed this wording from the design guide introduction and changed the wording in the introduction to:"Traditionally, accessibility focused on making the interface usable for people with sensory and physical impairments (vision, hearing and/or mobility). Some accessibility features will help people with cognitive impairments, but often the issues that affect people with cognitive and learning disabilities are about context, structure, language, usability, and other factors that are difficult to include in general guidance."

8. SUGGESTION: 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.
CHANGE: Updated abstract, reordered document and added langugage to the design guide to make the distinction clearer.

9. SUGGESTION: 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.
CHANGE: Removed

10. SUGGESTION: 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.
CHANGE: Removed

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

12. SUGGESTION: Provide clear language that states the relationship with WCAG up front that it doesn't add to the requirements WCAG
CHANGE: Updated abstract, reordered document and added langugage to the design guide to make the distinction clearer.

13.SUGGESTION: Remove links to WCAG Github issues and pull requests
CHANGE: Removed

14. SUGGESTION: remove or amend the table which says all the previously unaccepted WCAG SCs meet all the SC Acceptance criteria
CHANGE: Removed
John Kirkwood Yes, move to wide review Yes, move to wide review per Rachel Montgomery COGA TF proposed changes.
Alastair Campbell Yes, with the following changes The following 3 items are strongly recommended:
1) The do/don't thing has lead to many instances of non-english, e.g. "Don't: Headings do not clarify the steps".
Suggest perhaps Use and Avoid?
E.g.
- "Use: Headings that tell me where I am
- Avoid: Headings do not clarify the steps in a form."
Ideally most "avoid" sentences would need an additional that, e.g. "Headings that do not...", but even without 'that' it would make more sense.

2) Can we improve the alt text? I looked at the one under Visual Cues, almost identical for two different images. Should be something like:
"Two blue squares containing white circles. The blue backgrounds make two groupings visually apparent."
"Two blue boxes containing different types of circle. The border acts as a separator."

3) In the "Appendix: Considerations for Uptake in Different Contexts and Policies", don't use 'must' in "User considerations must also be taken", use 'should', or something like "It is important to consider..."

The following items are suggested:

a) Re-ordering the bullets in the abstract to match the new document order.
I think that would be:
- people with learning and cognitive disabilities,
- aims and objectives for useable content,
- design patterns (ways) to make content usable,
- including users in design and testing activities, and
- personas (examples) and user needs.

b) Can we tidy up the images in the summary? (Check with Michael) E.g.
#summary li img {
float: left;
margin: 0 0.3em 0.5em 0;
}
#summary li {
clear: left;
margin-bottom: 1em;
}

c) The intro (2) finishes one paragraph with "difficult to include in general guidance." and starts the next with "This document aims to provide guidance".
I think we need a different word, how about "difficult to include in guidelines ."

d) There is an odd editors note in A7, "Mental health and avoiding triggers is not yet fully supported. ".
1. Is everything else 'fully supported'?
2. Mental health isn't mentioned as something that is explicitly covered anyway, so why the note? (In the intro it is mentioned as "easier to use for everyone, including people who are experiencing stress or mental health issues."
Unless it can be made clearer, suggest removing it.
Andrew Kirkpatrick Yes, with the following changes It doesn't seem that any changes have been made to the Appendix C. I agree with the change David suggested but also:

1) In Appendix C: "Review the different design pattern criteria, which are listed in the following table, and decide if they are relevant to the environmental or situational scenarios." - there is no following table
2) Same comment for sub-bullet on #1 above.
3) In Appendix C: "Critical Services: A policy for critical services might require any design pattern with a medium to high user need level, as reflected in the table of design patterns and policy criteria." - the "table of design patterns and policy criteria" is linked from this and there is no indication in the link or on the page it links to that this is not guidance that the Working Group has reached agreement on. I suggest making the link "table of design patterns and policy criteria (draft)" and then also adding a statement at the top of the google doc that is linked along the lines of "Publication as Draft document by the Cognitive Accessibility Task Force does not imply endorsement by the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group or the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress."
4) Second paragraph of the Appendix C includes: "(In contrast conformance to The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) is required by law in many countries, and is designed to enable clear conformance and wide applicability for all web content.)" - first, the word clear should be removed as it doesn't make sense here. Second, saying "enable conformance for all web content" is odd. Perhaps, "and is designed to be widely applicable to and allow conformance by all web content."?
Judy Brewer No, for the following reasons It is good to see the continued improvements in the document. With regard to comments I have made on previous versions, I appreciate the mention of supplemental guidance in the abstract, but think that that needs more clarification. Likewise the section on uptake of this guidance in different situations is improved, but it could use more -- potentially a sentence or two of that text could be used in the abstract to clarify applicability. Overall, anything to trim the document would increase uptake chances.

More details on responses

  • David MacDonald: last responded on 21, May 2020 at 14:43 (UTC)
  • Lisa Seeman-Horwitz: last responded on 25, May 2020 at 09:04 (UTC)
  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 26, May 2020 at 13:17 (UTC)
  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 26, May 2020 at 14:22 (UTC)
  • Abi James: last responded on 26, May 2020 at 17:56 (UTC)
  • Rachael Bradley Montgomery: last responded on 28, May 2020 at 15:59 (UTC)
  • John Kirkwood: last responded on 1, June 2020 at 18:57 (UTC)
  • Alastair Campbell: last responded on 1, June 2020 at 22:56 (UTC)
  • Andrew Kirkpatrick: last responded on 2, June 2020 at 14:59 (UTC)
  • Judy Brewer: last responded on 3, June 2020 at 03:59 (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. Patrick Lauke
  10. Gez Lemon
  11. Makoto Ueki
  12. Peter Korn
  13. Preety Kumar
  14. Georgios Grigoriadis
  15. Stefan Schnabel
  16. Romain Deltour
  17. Chris Blouch
  18. Jedi Lin
  19. Jeanne F Spellman
  20. Wilco Fiers
  21. Kimberly Patch
  22. Glenda Sims
  23. Ian Pouncey
  24. Léonie Watson
  25. David Sloan
  26. Mary Jo Mueller
  27. Detlev Fischer
  28. Reinaldo Ferraz
  29. Matt Garrish
  30. Mike Gifford
  31. Loïc Martínez Normand
  32. Mike Pluke
  33. Justine Pascalides
  34. Chris Loiselle
  35. Tzviya Siegman
  36. Jan McSorley
  37. Sailesh Panchang
  38. Cristina Mussinelli
  39. Jonathan Avila
  40. John Rochford
  41. Sarah Horton
  42. Sujasree Kurapati
  43. Jatin Vaishnav
  44. Sam Ogami
  45. Kevin White
  46. E.A. Draffan
  47. Paul Bohman
  48. JaEun Jemma Ku
  49. 骅 杨
  50. Victoria Clark
  51. Avneesh Singh
  52. Mitchell Evan
  53. Michael Gower
  54. biao liu
  55. Scott McCormack
  56. Francis Storr
  57. Rick Johnson
  58. David Swallow
  59. Aparna Pasi
  60. Gregorio Pellegrino
  61. Melanie Philipp
  62. Jake Abma
  63. Nicole Windmann
  64. Oliver Keim
  65. Gundula Niemann
  66. Ruoxi Ran
  67. Wendy Reid
  68. Scott O'Hara
  69. Charles Adams
  70. Muhammad Saleem
  71. Amani Ali
  72. Trevor Bostic
  73. Jamie Herrera
  74. Shinya Takami
  75. Karen Herr
  76. Kathy Eng
  77. Cybele Sack
  78. Audrey Maniez
  79. Jennifer Delisi
  80. Arthur Soroken
  81. Daniel Bjorge
  82. Kai Recke
  83. David Fazio
  84. Daniel Montalvo
  85. Mario Chacón-Rivas
  86. Michael Gilbert
  87. Caryn Pagel
  88. Achraf Othman
  89. Helen Burge
  90. Fernanda Bonnin
  91. Jared Batterman
  92. Raja Kushalnagar
  93. Jan Williams
  94. Todd Libby
  95. Isabel Holdsworth
  96. Julia Chen
  97. Marcos Franco Murillo
  98. Yutaka Suzuki
  99. Azlan Cuttilan
  100. Jennifer Strickland
  101. Joe Humbert
  102. Ben Tillyer
  103. Charu Pandhi
  104. Poornima Badhan Subramanian
  105. Alain Vagner
  106. Roberto Scano
  107. Rain Breaw Michaels
  108. Kun Zhang
  109. Jaunita George
  110. Regina Sanchez
  111. Shawn Thompson
  112. Thomas Brunet
  113. Kenny Dunsin
  114. Jen Goulden
  115. Mike Beganyi
  116. Ronny Hendriks
  117. Olivia Hogan-Stark
  118. Rashmi Katakwar
  119. Julie Rawe
  120. Duff Johnson
  121. Laura Miller
  122. Will Creedle
  123. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  124. Marie Csanady
  125. Meenakshi Das
  126. Perrin Anto
  127. Rachele DiTullio
  128. Jan Jaap de Groot
  129. Rebecca Monteleone
  130. Ian Kersey
  131. Peter Bossley
  132. Anastasia Lanz
  133. Michael Keane
  134. Chiara De Martin
  135. Giacomo Petri
  136. Andrew Barakat
  137. Devanshu Chandra
  138. Xiao (Helen) Zhou
  139. Joe Lamyman
  140. Bryan Trogdon
  141. Mary Ann (MJ) Jawili
  142. 禹佳 陶
  143. 锦澄 王
  144. Stephen James
  145. Jay Mullen
  146. Thorsten Katzmann
  147. Tony Holland
  148. Kent Boucher
  149. Abbey Davis
  150. Phil Day
  151. Julia Kim
  152. Michelle Lana
  153. David Williams
  154. Mikayla Thompson
  155. Catherine Droege
  156. James Edwards
  157. Eric Hind
  158. Quintin Balsdon
  159. Mario Batušić
  160. David Cox
  161. Sazzad Mahamud
  162. Katy Brickley
  163. Kimberly Sarabia
  164. Corey Hinshaw
  165. Ashley Firth
  166. Daniel Harper-Wain
  167. Kiara Stewart
  168. DJ Chase
  169. Suji Sreerama
  170. Lori Oakley
  171. David Middleton
  172. Alyssa Priddy
  173. Young Choi
  174. Nichole Bui
  175. Julie Romanowski
  176. Eloisa Guerrero
  177. Daniel Henderson-Ede
  178. George Kuan
  179. YAPING LIN
  180. Justin Wilson
  181. Leonard Beasley
  182. Tiffany Burtin
  183. Shane Dittmar
  184. Nayan Padrai
  185. Niamh Kelly
  186. Matt Argomaniz Matthew Argomaniz
  187. Frankie Wolf
  188. Kimberly McGee
  189. Ahson Rana
  190. Carolina Crespo
  191. humor927 humor927
  192. Samantha McDaniel
  193. Matthäus Rojek
  194. Phong Tony Le
  195. Bram Janssens
  196. Graham Ritchie
  197. Aleksandar Cindrikj
  198. Jeroen Hulscher
  199. Alina Vayntrub
  200. Marco Sabidussi
  201. John Toles
  202. Jeanne Erickson Cooley
  203. Theo Hale
  204. Gert-Jan Vercauteren
  205. Karla Rubiano
  206. Aashutosh K
  207. Hidde de Vries
  208. Julian Kittelson-Aldred
  209. Roland Buss
  210. Aditya Surendranath
  211. Avon Kuo
  212. Elizabeth Patrick
  213. Tj Squires
  214. Nat Tarnoff
  215. Illai Zeevi
  216. Filippo Zorzi
  217. Gleidson Ramos
  218. Mike Pedersen
  219. Rachael Yomtoob
  220. Oliver Habersetzer
  221. Irfan Mukhtar
  222. Sage Keriazes

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