W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire WCAG3 Explainer

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2021-07-29 to 2021-08-03.

5 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

WCAG3 Explainer

1. WCAG3 Explainer

The WCAG3 Explainer was previously discussed in the AGWG meeting of 8 June and AGWG meeting of 22 June. The WCAG3 Explainer has been extensively revised to condense it, remove repetition, and incorporate the comments of the AGWG members.

Link to WCAG3 Explainer

Can we move the WCAG3 Explainer to CFC for addition to the next update of WCAG3 as a first draft of what will be a Working Group Note?

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Agree	2
Agree with the following changes	1
Disagree for the following reason	2

Details

Responder	WCAG3 Explainer
Charles Adams	Agree
Cybele Sack	Disagree for the following reason	Can this section please be clarified further, especially to explain what it means in its current state? Is it referring to another document that may benefit from further discussion? "Develop a more FLEXIBLE method of measuring conformance that is better suited to accommodate dynamic or more regularly updated content." (emphasis added). Can this line also be discussed further at a separate meeting before this moves to the next stage? Also this line: "Where possible, do not increase the manual accessibility testing burden." This may be a problem if part of the goal of WCAG 3.0 is to increase accessibility for those with cognitive disabilities. Limiting manual testing may limit the amount of cognitive accessibility that is included. There may be a conflict between the desire of those who are using automated testing and the needs of end users with disabilities. COGA should review this before it goes further. Thank you.
Gundula Niemann	Disagree for the following reason	In fact I disagree, where exactly the explanation gives me words for what disturbs me in the structure. See section 5.4 How the parts work together. - There are two starting boxes. This does not work out, there may be only one start point. - The test and scoring are part of the methods, which in turn are 1. non-normative 2. specific to technology. That means no test and scoring is defined for technologies we might miss or not (yet) be aware of (might b invented in 10 years). How to test and how to score must be parts of the normative part. - The connection of how to to the rest (and the methods) remains unclear. - It is not explained how test scoring connects to outcome scoring. - The double influence of the functional needs on the score by functional category is mind boggling. - The score by functional category influences the bronze level, but not the overall score. How can 'overall' then be overall? Having reviewed and discussed the suggestion for error prevention recently, I think the graph describes the structure and makes it easier to put several of the issues into words reported by then.
Laura Carlson	Agree with the following changes	For the conformance model focus more on helping users instead of big corporations. Add that exemptions for 3rd party content are not the Working Group's intention. And that we will be using ATAG. Suggest changing: "Create a more flexible conformance model that addresses the challenges in applying the 2.x conformance model to large, complex, or dynamic websites and web applications. * Help organizations prioritize things that have a greater impact on improving the experience of people with disability. * Develop a more flexible method of measuring conformance that is better suited to accommodate dynamic or more regularly updated content." To something such as: "Create a more flexible conformance model that improves and encourages the accessibility of third party content for users. * Exemptions for third party content are not the Working Group's intention. * Utilize sections of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG)."
Bruce Bailey	Agree