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. Peter Heery
  28. Detlev Fischer
  29. Reinaldo Ferraz
  30. Matt Garrish
  31. Mike Gifford
  32. Loïc Martínez Normand
  33. Mike Pluke
  34. Jon Gibbins
  35. Justine Pascalides
  36. Chris Loiselle
  37. Tzviya Siegman
  38. Jan McSorley
  39. Sailesh Panchang
  40. Cristina Mussinelli
  41. Jonathan Avila
  42. John Rochford
  43. Sarah Horton
  44. Sujasree Kurapati
  45. Jatin Vaishnav
  46. Sam Ogami
  47. Kevin White
  48. E.A. Draffan
  49. Paul Bohman
  50. JaEun Jemma Ku
  51. 骅 杨
  52. Victoria Clark
  53. Avneesh Singh
  54. Mitchell Evan
  55. Michael Gower
  56. biao liu
  57. Scott McCormack
  58. Francis Storr
  59. David Swallow
  60. Aparna Pasi
  61. Gregorio Pellegrino
  62. Melanie Philipp
  63. Jake Abma
  64. Nicole Windmann
  65. Oliver Keim
  66. Gundula Niemann
  67. Ruoxi Ran
  68. Wendy Reid
  69. Scott O'Hara
  70. Charles Adams
  71. Muhammad Saleem
  72. Amani Ali
  73. Trevor Bostic
  74. Jamie Herrera
  75. Shinya Takami
  76. Karen Herr
  77. Kathy Eng
  78. Cybele Sack
  79. Audrey Maniez
  80. Jennifer Delisi
  81. Arthur Soroken
  82. Daniel Bjorge
  83. Kai Recke
  84. David Fazio
  85. Daniel Montalvo
  86. Mario Chacón-Rivas
  87. Michael Gilbert
  88. Caryn Pagel
  89. Achraf Othman
  90. Helen Burge
  91. Fernanda Bonnin
  92. Christina Adams
  93. Raja Kushalnagar
  94. Jan Williams
  95. Todd Libby
  96. Isabel Holdsworth
  97. Julia Chen
  98. Marcos Franco Murillo
  99. Yutaka Suzuki
  100. Azlan Cuttilan
  101. Jennifer Strickland
  102. Joe Humbert
  103. Ben Tillyer
  104. Charu Pandhi
  105. Poornima Badhan Subramanian
  106. Alain Vagner
  107. Roberto Scano
  108. Rain Breaw Michaels
  109. Kun Zhang
  110. Jaunita George
  111. Regina Sanchez
  112. Shawn Thompson
  113. Thomas Brunet
  114. Kenny Dunsin
  115. Jen Goulden
  116. Mike Beganyi
  117. Ronny Hendriks
  118. Korede Olubowale
  119. Rashmi Katakwar
  120. Julie Rawe
  121. Duff Johnson
  122. Laura Miller
  123. Will Creedle
  124. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  125. Marie Csanady
  126. Meenakshi Das
  127. Perrin Anto
  128. Brian Elton
  129. Rachele DiTullio
  130. Jan Jaap de Groot
  131. Rebecca Monteleone
  132. Ian Kersey
  133. Peter Bossley
  134. Michael Keane
  135. Chiara De Martin
  136. Giacomo Petri
  137. Andrew Barakat
  138. Devanshu Chandra
  139. Xiao (Helen) Zhou
  140. Joe Lamyman
  141. Bryan Trogdon
  142. Mary Ann (MJ) Jawili
  143. 禹佳 陶
  144. 锦澄 王
  145. Stephen James
  146. Jay Mullen
  147. Thorsten Katzmann
  148. Tony Holland
  149. Kent Boucher
  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. Fred Edora
  171. Lori Oakley
  172. David Middleton
  173. Alyssa Priddy
  174. Young Choi
  175. Nichole Bui
  176. Julie Romanowski
  177. Eloisa Guerrero
  178. George Kuan
  179. YAPING LIN
  180. Justin Wilson
  181. Leonard Beasley
  182. Tiffany Burtin
  183. Shane Dittmar
  184. Nayan Padrai
  185. Matt Argomaniz Matthew Argomaniz
  186. Frankie Wolf
  187. Kimberly McGee
  188. Ahson Rana
  189. Carolina Crespo
  190. humor927 humor927
  191. Jackie Fei
  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. Paul Adam
  205. Gert-Jan Vercauteren
  206. Karla Rubiano
  207. Aashutosh K
  208. Hidde de Vries
  209. Julian Kittelson-Aldred
  210. Roland Buss
  211. Aditya Surendranath
  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. Ken Franqueiro
  222. Irfan Mukhtar
  223. Rachel White
  224. Sage Keriazes
  225. Tananda Darling
  226. Nina Krauß
  227. Demelza Feltham
  228. Ragvesh Sharma
  229. Shunguo Yan
  230. Charli Riggle
  231. Nora GOUGANE
  232. Andy Manea
  233. Tim Gravemaker
  234. Roldon Brown
  235. qin guan
  236. Alexandra Yaneva
  237. Carrie Hall
  238. Tanya van Workum
  239. Megan Pletzer
  240. Akash Shukla
  241. Rob Whitaker
  242. Jeremy Katherman
  243. Atya Ratcliff
  244. Nati Elimelech
  245. Noa Nitzan
  246. Jory Cunningham
  247. Imran Ahmed

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