W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire WCAG 3.0 Editor's Notes

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2020-12-21 to 2021-01-05.

16 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Editors' note in WCAG 3 FPWD on inclusion
Notable Contributions Section and Editor's Note

1. Editors' note in WCAG 3 FPWD on inclusion

The chairs propose an editor's note in the Background on WCAG 3 section of the FPWD, requesting feedback on how to improve inclusion, with the following text:

W3C strives to be as inclusive as possible, and has actively sought participation and input from a broad range of stakeholder groups. We recognize, however, that there is always room for improvement in practices to support inclusion and representation. As you evaluate this document, please consider whether there are ways the Working Group can better support your review, feedback, or inclusion within the process of creating this standard. We welcome feedback on this question as part of your comments.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Add the editor's note with the current wording	14
Add the editor's note with changes	1
Do not add an editor's note requesting feedback on inclusion
Other

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

Details

Responder	Editors' note in WCAG 3 FPWD on inclusion	Comments
Andrew Somers	Add the editor's note with the current wording
Laura Carlson	Add the editor's note with the current wording
Justine Pascalides	Add the editor's note with the current wording
Sukriti Chadha	Add the editor's note with the current wording
Jake Abma	Add the editor's note with changes	I think the following sentence needs some rewrite as I think this is about ways the WG can improve the document and that is not what is says right now. "As you evaluate this document, please consider whether there are ways the Working Group can better support your review, feedback, or inclusion within the process of creating this standard." Reads like: - consider whether the Working Group can better support your review (it's not about supporting the review, but act upon review comments) - consider whether the Working Group can better support feedback (it's not about support the feedback, but act upon the feedback) - consider whether the Working Group can better support your inclusion (don't know what 'support your inclusion' hints at / means?!)
Sarah Horton	Add the editor's note with the current wording
John Foliot	Add the editor's note with the current wording
Todd Libby	Add the editor's note with the current wording
Kim Dirks	Add the editor's note with the current wording
Bruce Bailey	Add the editor's note with the current wording
Michael Gower	Add the editor's note with the current wording
Jeanne F Spellman	Add the editor's note with the current wording
Andrew Kirkpatrick	Add the editor's note with the current wording
David MacDonald	Add the editor's note with the current wording
Alastair Campbell
Janina Sajka	Add the editor's note with the current wording

2. Notable Contributions Section and Editor's Note

The chairs propose adding a section to to the Acknowledgment appendix of WCAG 3 FPWD recognizing Participants who made notable contributions to the creation of this document section of the FPWD, requesting feedback on how to objectively identify key contributers, with the following text:

This section will document key contributors. The method of identifying these individuals is in process and a list will be included in the next draft. This list will be updated for each subsequent draft.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Add the section and editor's note with the current wording	11
Add the section and editor's note with changes	3
Do not add the section and editor's note	1
Other	1

Details

Responder	Notable Contributions Section and Editor's Note	Comments
Andrew Somers	Add the section and editor's note with the current wording	At the moment, I can see at least four broad categories: * Major contributors: those that did significant research, authorship, and/or technology development that was used substantially. * Associate contributors: those that assisted major contributors in a material way, ideally nominated/suggested by the major contributors. * Administrative contributors, those with the focus of managing goals and resource development. * Participating contributors: Those that regularly contributed feedback, opinion, or evaluation notes. A
Laura Carlson	Add the section and editor's note with the current wording
Justine Pascalides	Add the section and editor's note with changes	Consider combining the first and third sentences: This section will document key contributors and it will be updated at each subsequent draft.
Sukriti Chadha	Add the section and editor's note with the current wording
Jake Abma	Add the section and editor's note with the current wording
Sarah Horton	Add the section and editor's note with the current wording
John Foliot	Add the section and editor's note with the current wording
Todd Libby	Add the section and editor's note with the current wording
Kim Dirks	Add the section and editor's note with the current wording
Bruce Bailey	Add the section and editor's note with changes	Sorry, but I do not agree with the "key" contributors adjective, since that feels very arbitrary to me, and would strongly prefer to have that one word deleted. (i.e., <q>This section will document contributors. The method...</q>) I would note that recognizing contributions towards both WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 also each spanned several years worth of activity. I do not agree that <q>notable contributions</q> for 3.0 needs to be significantly different in format from what we ended up with 1.0 and/or 2.0. That said, I can live with any of these three options, and would not like to see the FCPWD delayed further.
Michael Gower	Other	If you don't come up with criteria acceptable to all, you may not be able to proceed. Why not make the language a little softer. "This section is intended to document key contributors...a list should be included...
Jeanne F Spellman	Add the section and editor's note with the current wording
Andrew Kirkpatrick	Add the section and editor's note with the current wording
David MacDonald	Do not add the section and editor's note	It's tough to do this well... there are a hundred names on the WCAG 2.1 with no key contributors. Would key contributors to 2.0 be key contributors to 3.0 since it is built on 2.0, 2.1?
Alastair Campbell	Add the section and editor's note with the current wording	I've changed my answer from "Do not" to agree with the addition, thanks to Jeanne's comments in the meeting. However, if we don't agree on the criteria, we should have the option to drop the section.
Janina Sajka	Add the section and editor's note with changes	OK with edits from today's AGWG as recorded in minutes.