W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire User Needs Review

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2021-06-04 to 2021-07-07.

18 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. How we define 'User Need': User Need Statements
  2. List of user needs
  3. Intersectional needs
  4. List of contexts

1. How we define 'User Need': User Need Statements

By calling this a ‘statement’ we aim to answer the question of what a user need is as well as propose an editorial format. For example, at a high level, “What is a user need and how do you write one?”. The user need is defined as:

A description of what a user requires in context, to achieve a goal or complete a task.

This positions the concept of user needs in relation to both functional needs and any necessary accessibility guidance.

Is this statement format useful? If not, please outline your reasoning and any comments about improvements.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
yes 12
no 5

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

Details

Responder How we define 'User Need': User Need StatementsComments
Jeanne F Spellman yes "in context" is not as clear as it could be. I would propose new language, but I'm not sure what you wanted to accomplish by including those words. I think it reads well without it "A description of what a user requires to achieve a goal or complete a task.".

After reading question 5, I have a better understanding of what you mean, so I would make it a statement followed by a list. For example:
A description of what a user requires in context, to achieve a goal or complete a task. Examples of content include:
* environment or situation of use (user environment context)
* browsing environment (AT and browser/platform context)
* content type (content context)
* task being undertaken (task context)
* user goal (goal context)
Tobias Christian Jensen yes
Suzanne Taylor
Todd Libby yes
Wilco Fiers no "a user" is far too broad. This clearly isn't intending to describe the needs of every individual user. This is looking at groups of users, which I think should be part of the definition. Additionally, I'm not too sure it makes sense to assume everything someone may want to do is to achieve a goal or complete a task. If I spend my evening clicking from page to page on wikipedia, I don't do it with a specific goal or task in mind. If goals / tasks can be as generic as "find something interesting", then it doesn't seem like it's worth including in the definition.
Jake Abma no User Need:

"A description of a specific user requirement originated out of functional needs"

"A description of a specific user requirement originated out of (based on) (ones) functional need(s)"

1. Like to see the relation to the Functional Needs, as this keeps it clear and clean...
2. in context not needed as other context results in other functional needs
3. "to achieve a goal or complete a task" can be deleted, as without it this is always also applicable)
Fredrik Fischer yes
Charles LaPierre yes
Lisa Seeman-Horwitz yes I think it needs some tweeking but is close
Albert Kim no I don't know if it's really the best to put the "in context" part in there. How about starting from here and thinking of specifying a little more clearly without making the format too confusing: "A description of what a user requires to perform a task"
Rain Breaw Michaels yes The following response comes from a working session with JohnK and Rain: 

1. Yes, we think that this format is useful. We agree with Lisa's comment that it may need more tweaking, as we find the language a bit confusing. But this is a good starting point.

2. We want to acknowledge our COGA TF colleague Albert's concern about the words "in context," but after discussion both John K and I feel that the words "in context" are actually quite important. Removing them might imply that things like separate help documentation are sufficient supports, which would not be acceptable. 

3. We found Albert's choice of the word "perform" in place of "complete" to be compelling and worth consideration. This would change the statement to "A description of what a user requires in context, to achieve a goal or perform a task." This gives room for more descriptive support that focuses on an overall experience and not just the end result.

We acknowledge, however, that the word "complete" may be necessary because of the legal precedence regarding task completion. For this reason, we are simply using this response to document our thoughts on the word perform rather than making the actual change. There may be opportunity to foster more understanding around the overall experience elsewhere.
Becky Gibson yes
Jennifer Strickland yes
Mary Jo Mueller no IMO it is too brief/abstract to really understand what goes into describing a user need.

From The Nielsen Norman Group article on User Needs Statements: The 'Define' Stage in Design Thinking. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/user-need-statements/

- Definition: A user need statement is an actionable problem statement used to summarize who a particular user is, the user’s need, and why the need is important to that user. It defines what you want to solve before you move on to generating potential solutions, in order to 1) condense your perspective on the problem, and 2) provide a metric for success to be used throughout the design thinking process.

The article goes on to explain that user need statements encourage us to see users’ needs as verbs (that is, goals and end states) instead of nouns that describe solutions.
Jason White no I prefer the format used in ISO/IEC 29138-1:2018, in which each need has a title, description, instances of application, and examples - all properly written out in a way that should be clearer to the reader than the terse draft language of your document. The W3C document reads more like a set of notes than a draft. I think a document in a format such as that of the ISO would be clearer to potential audiences (e.g., specification developers, implementers of W3C/WAI accessibility guidance) than what you currently have. I also think coordination between the W3C and the ISO in this area would be desirable, if it is possible, for purposes of standards harmonization and to avoid duplication of work. Even if a "living document" is proposed, it should be properly drafted and of high quality, given the foundational importance of user needs to all accessibility-related standards and guidance.

If the W3C effort has a different focus than that of the ISO, this should be clarified and the relationship between the respective documents addressed. My concern is that there will be a lack of harmonization and considerable overlap of content between the two.
Aimee Ubbink yes
Lionel Wolberger yes
Mike Beganyi yes Without being too pedant, I'm not sure that the comma is required in that statement.

2. List of user needs

Please review the current draft list of user needs, are there a) any missing needs, or b) any needs that are redundant, inaccurate, or unnecessary?

[Perceivable]

  • Users can perceive:
  • Content
  • Controls (or objects role, system state and other properties)
  • Semantic structure
  • Users can perceive (changes to):
  • Controls (objects role, system state and other properties)
  • Content (SPA, tablist, AJAX / Async)

[Operable]

  • Users can operate controls:
  • Without Duration requirement
  • Adjust Duration requirement
  • Without Physical movements
  • Users can navigate content
  • Users can control their:
  • Content orientation
  • Orientation in a space

[Understandable]

  • Users can understand:
  • Content
  • Structure
  • Navigation
  • Controls (or objects role, system state and other properties)
  • Changed content
  • Users can find help information about how to use the content
  • Users can identify their position:
  • In content
  • In context
  • In a process
  • In a space
  • Users can orientate themselves in:
  • Immersive or augmented environments
  • Instructions for accessible interaction
  • Understanding available interactions

[Personalization]

  • Users can customize (or request):
  • Content
  • Context
  • Users get customized (via platform):
  • Content
  • Context
  • Functionality
  • Users can find help information about:
  • how to use the content
  • Users can control:
  • time-sensitive Content
  • time-sensitive Tasks
  • time-based media (including dynamic values, EQ, volume)
  • Users personalization preferences:
  • are honoured by content authors
  • are not compromised by security
  • do not compromise privacy
  • Users can, device independently:
  • Interact
  • Input data
  • Route and control output

[Discoverability]

  • Users can discover new content
  • Users can recover from errors
  • Users can avoid errors

[Distractions and Inflictions]

  • Users can: (not interrupted)
  • Focus attention
  • Direct attention
  • Shift attention
  • Users are not harmed:
  • Physically (to self or others within a physical environment)
  • Neurologically
  • Users can avoid personal risk
  • Users privacy should be preserved
  • Users are aware of alerts

Details

Responder List of user needs
Jeanne F Spellman Perceivable: Users need to associate text with the speaker. Perhaps it is a subset of Semantic Structure, but I think it merits its own.
Operable: "Without Physical movement" is too bleeding edge, IMO. There is some movement required in everything except the new brain controls. Switch, eyeblink, and other assistive tech all have some physical movement. I think this would be better if it were "With assistive technology" which is inclusive of brain controls. Assistive tech will be with us for a long time to come.
Understandable: Nit: In the US "Users can orientate themselves in" should be "Users can orient themselves in" I checked W3C official dictionary (Merriam Webster).
Distractions: Users privacy is the only "should". It stands out. I think it should be fixed. "Users privacy is preserved comparable to all users" ?
??: Where are speech input for navigation and aphasia for speech-controlled devices?
All: It's hard to think what isn't there. For Understandable, has their been a comparison with "Content Usable"?
Tobias Christian Jensen Operable:
"Without Physical movements": I suppose some form of physical movement will be required.

Discoverability:
"Users can discover new content": Is new content the same as new contexts? It could be read as "content that is fresh, just published", and thus something other than new contexts (which should also be clear).
Suzanne Taylor Users are not *purposely* mislead, stressed, or shocked
- no experiences (especially immersive) promoted as any genre less intense than the actual experience
- no surreal experiences that do not have warnings (e.g. simulations / diagnostics that give people the impression that something is happening or has happened that would cause trauma if it did happen)
- no intentionally misleading information that is designed to cause psychological stress (e.g. News headlines imply something worse than is actually reported, especially when news is automatically delivered, rather than sought.)
- no intentionally misleading designs (e.g. the most prominent button toward the end of a form where submit buttons are generally placed is for a completely different service/action)
- no purposefully leaving out information that could be easily provided with the intention of creating stress or fear that is disproportionate to the information and monetization scheme (e.g. a major news organization requires attention to their media at a particular time to find out which very dangerous toy was recalled)

Todd Libby Operable, Users can operate controls: "Without physical movements" - I would guess there would be some kind of physical movement of some sort. Too broad of a statement in my opinion.
Wilco Fiers
Jake Abma
Fredrik Fischer This all works for me. Perception of changes in structure would be nice, since apps may change thesemantic structure of their output due to controls or other user-independent factors.
Charles LaPierre Operable I would think we would have "multiple ways" listed (voice, keyboard, mouse, eye, puff, etc.)
Lisa Seeman-Horwitz this should be tested against the coga user needs to see what is missing.
A quick view does have missing items, such as
- restoring context when it is lost
- support for tasks
-understand risks
etc
also use is not well defined
Albert Kim
Rain Breaw Michaels This comments is coming from both John K and Rain, during a supplemental COGA TF working review. We created a new document with this list and highlighted our recommendations in PINK:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/123xE_fZKPXXZULNsECSAC8uukGnSdbduGtrGi5jVSTc/edit?usp=sharing

Our recommendations include the ones brought up in Lisa's comment, as well.
Becky Gibson What is meant by objects role - should it be object's role (possessive form)? Until I made that connection it was confusing to me.
Operate without Physical movements seems a bit restrictive It seems that some movement is always necessary be it speech, eye movement,etc. Thus, I think this needs to be better worded.
Users can avoid personal risk is also a bit generic? What type of risks - I am guessing this is referring to physical since privacy/security is covered.
I would expand Users are aware of alerts to alerts and notifications or just Users are aware of notifications since alerts are a form of notification.
Jennifer Strickland The combination of potential workarounds for intersectional folk, the layering of those workarounds may be another item to consider.
Mary Jo Mueller I have a question (though I don't have a full copy of the ISO standard) about how well this list of user needs jives with the existing ISO 30071-1:2019. This is It seems by looking at the outline, that there are a few potential additional areas to explore:

- Needs related to conformity with user expectations: I think "predictability" could fall into this category, like the WCAG requirement category that falls under "Understandable"
- Needs related to error tolerance
- Needs related to equitable use

There could be other sub-categories in the details of that standard if someone on the team has a copy of the ISO standard.

I don't see "without a pointing device" or something covering "keyboard operable" under the operable section or something to the user need that the user can provide input or interact with content in a modality that works for them.
Jason White These proposed "needs" are more like software/content requirements than actual user needs. It is clear that there are numerous accessibility needs documented in ISO/IEC 29138-1:2018 that are not included here, and, to the extent that there is overlap, the ISO document is clearer in specifying what is ultimately needed by the user (by contrast with what the system should provide or how the need should be met by information and communication technology-based systems).

I don't think the ISO document is perfect; but it covers the territory of defining users' accessibility needs more thoroughly than any other document which I have read. One could argue that some of the needs specified by the ISO aren't relevant in the Web context, but that is a judgment which ought to be made carefully - on a need-by-need basis, and it doesn't explain what is missing from the above list.
Aimee Ubbink [Understandable] Users can orientate themselves in: -> typo 'orientate' should be 'orient'
[Personalization] time-based media -> time-based Media (cap the Media to maintain consistent formatting of the previous items)
Lionel Wolberger Re: Users can operate controls... Without Physical movements. This sounds out of scope: in the end there is some movement and an associated electronic signal. I would leave it out.

Re: Users can, device independently. How does "device independently" help here? Confuses me: any ability of users is both dependent and independent of devices.

Re: Users are not harmed. Highly inconsistent with the rest of the document. Users can assess potential harm (more in keeping with the approach).

Re: Users privacy should be preserved. Privacy is so context dependent, that I would rephrase it, users privacy meets users expectations

Users can orientate themselves in: <-- This seems redundant. It repeats the above orienteering while using other words. Why stop here? Can orient themselves within a timeline. Can orient themselves semantically within an argument. No end to it. Alternatively, differentiate "orienteering" from identifying position.

Error states are so important, not sure they are best served by lumping them under Discoverability. Discovering new content is very different from being informed that you have made an error.
Mike Beganyi Fantastic summary. No comments.

3. Intersectional needs

We define intersectional needs as:

A statement that describes user needs that result from an individual having more than one functional need simultaneously in a given context.

For example, people who are both deaf and blind have different needs from people who are just deaf or just blind. Another example is where user needs may change depending on context - this may be prominent in immersive environments. We call these "intersectional needs". What intersectional needs can you identify?

Details

Responder Intersectional needs
Jeanne F Spellman It's important to split the 3 categories of deaf blind, Deaf blind, and blind deaf. They have different needs. (originally deaf losing sight later in life or deaf blind from birth; Deaf (sign language) and later blind; and blind and acquiring deafness later in life) Sheri Byrne-Haber & Janina Sajka have spoken about this and can give more detail than I know.
All the sensory and physical disabilities can also have cognitive disabilities.
Sensory can also include physical - especially with aging population.
Tobias Christian Jensen
Suzanne Taylor
Todd Libby
Wilco Fiers
Jake Abma I think we might provide insight in intersectional needs by explaining what is meant.

I do not think we should try to identify those as we do with Functional and User Needs as it might become way too complex and messy as so many people often have more than 1 Functional need and combinations might end up in a huge amount of combinations.

We might see / check if all user needs needs are covered already by a single Functional need (and vice versa) resulting in the User Need(s) but might not always be applicable...

For example: a deaf - blind person uses / needs braille, and this might also already be a user need for some blind users, covering the need already but used by more than 1 functional need.
The necessity might differ, but the user need is there already.
Fredrik Fischer That is a huge question, especially if you take cognitive accessibility into account. I could hardly list them all. But, well, being able to focus at the same time as having an overview of content (blind and cognitively disabled) for instance.
Charles LaPierre
Lisa Seeman-Horwitz Huge topic. Ufortunatly I am traveling tomorow and just found out about this survey. Huge topic
Albert Kim Wording is too confusing again for people with cognitive and learning disabilities perspective. I would highly recommend refraining from describing multiple things in one sentence "that describes user needs" is used to describe "a statement" and "that result from an individual..."is used to describe "user needs" before it. The problem with this sentence structure is that in order to understand the whole statement, one would have to be able to remember the previous description of the word while reading another description of another word, which is quite difficult for people with some cognitive and learning disabilities. Try refraining from having descriptions of multiple things all in one sentence because it will confuse people from understanding what the sentence is trying to say and will put a lot of strain on the brain in order to understand what it is meant to say.


Rain Breaw Michaels Response from a combined COGA TF working review (John K and Rain):

Cognitive disabilities may also impact hand-eye coordination or other mobility related functions. There can be a common intersection between needs for cognitive and motor supports.

Aging populations may also be disproportionately impacted by both vision and hearing changes, as well as changes to short-term memory and executive functions.

Visual processing is also worth considering. While this is technically not always "low vision," individuals with cognitive disabilities might have challenges processing visual information in a way that is comparable to limited vision. They can also experience limited field of vision due to neurological patterns.

We would also suggest adding consideration for individuals who's neurological or cognitive differences impact speaking speed, clarity, and auditory processing.
Becky Gibson motor and speech impairments - can't use speech and may not be able to use mouse or keyboard or may rely on single switch

low vision and motor impairments - may rely on magnification and speech input

Jennifer Strickland In addition to disability intersections, there are others, such as gender, socio-economics, race, age, etc.

There are often discussions of is it possible to use a workaround. When someone with an intersectional identity spends a day code switching and layering workaround upon workaround, the impact is pretty devastating. The existence of a possible workaround for a scenario should not be a valid "out."
Mary Jo Mueller The above mentioned ISO 30071-1:2019 may help identify intersectional needs.
Jason White Intersectional needs are important. They are sometimes unduly overlooked.
Aimee Ubbink
Lionel Wolberger People often have a need (or set of needs) along with the need to deny those needs. PTSD often falls into this category: a need to avoid certain triggering stimuli, along with a need to deny having this need. This intersectional need drives requirements for good default settings that require no specific user action.

Some vulnerable populations take no action, deliberately, as they wish to avoid revealing who they are--this conforms with the above need for a good default state.
Mike Beganyi I think comorbidity exists in the interactive world as it does in other spaces. The interaction of mental health and cognitive disabilities and the effects that one can have on the other are severe and prolonged. I don't foresee any unique experiences in such intersectionality.

4. List of contexts

There is a broad question around intersectional needs and context of use. The Functional Needs sub group thinks that context can determine particular user needs. We also have to define what we mean by context. Context may be environmental, due to the users situation - or technical aspects such as browser AT configuration. Context may also relate to content traits.

The following are a list of potential contexts that may determine particular user needs and how they relate to functional needs/outcomes. This will be useful for weighing and measuring when certain functional outcomes compound, or can be removed from consideration. This approach may help facilitate granular conformance measurement.

Some potential contexts could be:

  • environment or situation of use (user environment context)
    • ,
  • browsing environment (AT and browser/platform context)
  • content type (content context)
  • task being undertaken (task context)
  • user goal (goal context)

Do you have any extra contexts that we should consider?

Details

Responder List of contexts
Jeanne F Spellman not yet. It looks comprehensive but I have not thought deeply about this.
Tobias Christian Jensen I wonder if the user's mental state (e.g. being stressed or low on energy) is also covered by some of these proposed contexts.
Suzanne Taylor
Todd Libby Thinking of persons with mental health issues (e.g.: stress, anxiety, diagnosed issues) and if those are addressed on this survey.
Wilco Fiers
Jake Abma
Fredrik Fischer A person's physical or mental state may be considered a context by this definition, so, well, that.
Charles LaPierre combination of task vs. goal potentially (# of steps involved) sub goals or tasks need to be accomplished and knowing where you are in the process potentially time required to complete this task vs. tasks left.
Just an idea.
Thanks!
Lisa Seeman-Horwitz much missing such as
stress, and mentle health
. needs a sub group

Albert Kim
Rain Breaw Michaels Not at this time, but will continue to think about this one. Some that come to mind that are likely out of scope, or could perhaps be considered in the above:

- Access to internet due to geo-location
- Socioeconomic context
- Legal contexts (e.g., what are the laws for what can be made available to the user through public funding or in certain situations such as educational setting)
Becky Gibson
Jennifer Strickland The number or severity of various contexts may multiply impact. It can be difficult to determine which weigh more than others, since individual context is so unique.
Mary Jo Mueller Does environment or situation of use include hardware technology context? as in say screen size, viewport size, etc? Or is that more about location (e.g. noisy environment, bright light, dark space, geography, etc.)?
Jason White I think the needs should be specified in terms of what the over-all context (hardware, software, environment) should provide to the user, and that the task of specifying how to meet them belongs to the system-level requirements designed to meet the user needs in specific situations or under specific constraints. For example, the need for textual alternatives to audio content is generic. It can arise for situational reasons or due to a hearing-related disability. How it is met differs depending on context (e.g., real-time or prerecorded media, whether or not an immersive environment is involved). This is why there are special considerations for different contexts in which captions are used.
Aimee Ubbink
Lionel Wolberger User agency context (user is an individual acting alone vs user has a care taker or assistant assisting them)
Mike Beganyi None additional.

More details on responses

  • Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 6, June 2021 at 15:29 (UTC)
  • Tobias Christian Jensen: last responded on 7, June 2021 at 09:09 (UTC)
  • Suzanne Taylor: last responded on 8, June 2021 at 07:36 (UTC)
  • Todd Libby: last responded on 8, June 2021 at 08:54 (UTC)
  • Wilco Fiers: last responded on 14, June 2021 at 11:26 (UTC)
  • Jake Abma: last responded on 21, June 2021 at 10:02 (UTC)
  • Fredrik Fischer: last responded on 21, June 2021 at 14:52 (UTC)
  • Charles LaPierre: last responded on 21, June 2021 at 15:11 (UTC)
  • Lisa Seeman-Horwitz: last responded on 21, June 2021 at 15:57 (UTC)
  • Albert Kim: last responded on 28, June 2021 at 11:43 (UTC)
  • Rain Breaw Michaels: last responded on 28, June 2021 at 16:00 (UTC)
  • Becky Gibson: last responded on 28, June 2021 at 20:19 (UTC)
  • Jennifer Strickland: last responded on 29, June 2021 at 13:30 (UTC)
  • Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 29, June 2021 at 22:13 (UTC)
  • Jason White: last responded on 30, June 2021 at 15:17 (UTC)
  • Aimee Ubbink: last responded on 5, July 2021 at 17:54 (UTC)
  • Lionel Wolberger: last responded on 7, July 2021 at 15:55 (UTC)
  • Mike Beganyi: last responded on 7, July 2021 at 17:21 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Gregg Vanderheiden
  2. Chris Wilson
  3. Chaals Nevile
  4. Philippe Le Hegaret
  5. Janina Sajka
  6. Shawn Lawton Henry
  7. Katie Haritos-Shea
  8. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  9. Chus Garcia
  10. Steve Faulkner
  11. Patrick Lauke
  12. David MacDonald
  13. Markku Hakkinen
  14. Gez Lemon
  15. Makoto Ueki
  16. Peter Korn
  17. Preety Kumar
  18. Bruce Bailey
  19. Georgios Grigoriadis
  20. Andrew Kirkpatrick
  21. Stefan Schnabel
  22. Romain Deltour
  23. Laura Carlson
  24. Chris Blouch
  25. John Foliot
  26. Jedi Lin
  27. James Craig
  28. Kimberly Patch
  29. Glenda Sims
  30. Ian Pouncey
  31. Alastair Campbell
  32. Léonie Watson
  33. David Sloan
  34. John Kirkwood
  35. Detlev Fischer
  36. Michael Elledge
  37. Reinaldo Ferraz
  38. Fridolin Wild
  39. Shilpi Kapoor
  40. Matt Garrish
  41. Mike Gifford
  42. Loïc Martínez Normand
  43. Mike Pluke
  44. Justine Pascalides
  45. Vivienne Conway
  46. Chris Loiselle
  47. Tzviya Siegman
  48. Jan McSorley
  49. Sailesh Panchang
  50. Cristina Mussinelli
  51. Jonathan Avila
  52. John Rochford
  53. Sarah Horton
  54. Sujasree Kurapati
  55. Jatin Vaishnav
  56. Sam Ogami
  57. Chaohai Ding
  58. Kevin White
  59. E.A. Draffan
  60. Paul Bohman
  61. JaEun Jemma Ku
  62. 骅 杨
  63. Avneesh Singh
  64. Mitchell Evan
  65. Michael Gower
  66. Qing An
  67. Renaldo Bernard
  68. biao liu
  69. Scott McCormack
  70. Denis Boudreau
  71. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  72. Shawn Lauriat
  73. Francis Storr
  74. Rick Johnson
  75. Kris Anne Kinney
  76. Gian Wild
  77. David Swallow
  78. Aparna Pasi
  79. Gregorio Pellegrino
  80. Melanie Philipp
  81. Amanda Mace
  82. Andreas Savva
  83. Ian Smith
  84. Nicole Windmann
  85. Abi James
  86. Oliver Keim
  87. Gundula Niemann
  88. Ruoxi Ran
  89. Richard Boardman
  90. Wendy Reid
  91. Jennifer Chadwick
  92. Scott O'Hara
  93. Charles Adams
  94. Aaron Chu
  95. Muhammad Saleem
  96. Amani Ali
  97. Trevor Bostic
  98. Shinya Takami
  99. Kathy Eng
  100. Cybele Sack
  101. Jennifer Delisi
  102. Rafal Charlampowicz
  103. Shrirang Sahasrabudhe
  104. Christos Petrou
  105. Arthur Soroken
  106. Daniel Bjorge
  107. Kai Recke
  108. David Fazio
  109. Daniel Montalvo
  110. Mario Chacón-Rivas
  111. Andrew Somers
  112. Michael Gilbert
  113. Caryn Pagel
  114. Achraf Othman
  115. Fernanda Bonnin
  116. Jared Batterman
  117. Raja Kushalnagar
  118. Jan Williams
  119. Isabel Holdsworth
  120. Sheri Byrne-Haber
  121. Julia Chen
  122. Shuxin Ouyang
  123. Christopher Weidner
  124. mancang sun
  125. David Middleton
  126. Yutaka Suzuki
  127. Scott Rubenstein
  128. Kyle Lachance
  129. Ela Gorla
  130. Aditya Bajaj
  131. Ben Tillyer
  132. Charu Pandhi
  133. Poornima Badhan Subramanian
  134. Kun Zhang
  135. Santina Croniser
  136. Jaunita George
  137. Melissa Douros
  138. Regina Sanchez
  139. Shawn Thompson
  140. Thomas Brunet
  141. Tolu Adegbite
  142. Kenny Dunsin
  143. Ronny Hendriks
  144. Andrew Nevins
  145. Breixo Pastoriza Barcia
  146. Olivia Hogan-Stark
  147. Rashmi Katakwar
  148. Julie Rawe
  149. Laura Miller
  150. Will Creedle
  151. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  152. Marie Csanady
  153. Meenakshi Das
  154. Perrin Anto
  155. Jonathan Buonaspina
  156. Sally Britnell
  157. Stephanie Louraine
  158. Sarah Wood
  159. Jan Jaap de Groot
  160. Sara Temby
  161. Rebecca Monteleone
  162. Anna Wheler
  163. Ian Kersey
  164. Peter Bossley
  165. Anastasia Lanz
  166. Michael Keane
  167. Giacomo Petri
  168. Andrew Barakat
  169. Devanshu Chandra
  170. Helen Zhou
  171. Jonathan Bell
  172. Bryan Trogdon
  173. Mary Ann (MJ) Jawili
  174. Stephen James
  175. Jay Mullen
  176. Thorsten Katzmann
  177. Tony Holland
  178. Kent Boucher
  179. Abbey Davis
  180. Steven Bassett
  181. Phil Day
  182. Julia Kim
  183. Michelle Lana
  184. David Williams
  185. Mikayla Thompson
  186. Mackenzie Banks
  187. Ilknur Eren
  188. Catherine Droege
  189. Jigna Islaniya
  190. Mahesh Bharadava
  191. Sunil Jolapara
  192. Tammy Salomon
  193. James Edwards
  194. Eric Hind
  195. David Leininger
  196. David Cox
  197. Sazzad Mahamud
  198. Katy Brickley
  199. Kimberly Sarabia
  200. Corey Hinshaw
  201. John Sherrod
  202. Daniel Harper-Wain
  203. Kiara Stewart
  204. Suji Sreerama
  205. Lori Oakley
  206. David Middleton
  207. Alyssa Priddy
  208. Young Choi
  209. Nichole Bui
  210. Julie Romanowski
  211. Eloisa Guerrero
  212. Daniel Henderson-Ede
  213. George Kuan
  214. YAPING LIN
  215. Justin Wilson
  216. Tiffany Burtin
  217. Shane Dittmar
  218. Brionna Brown
  219. Matt Argomaniz Matthew Argomaniz
  220. Frankie Wolf
  221. Carolina Crespo
  222. humor927 humor927
  223. Emily Jenkins

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.