W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire User Generated Content

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

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

11 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. New example of an outcome: Text alternative for user generated content
  2. User Generated Content (a new subsection of conformance)
  3. Glossary Definition of User Generated Content

1. New example of an outcome: Text alternative for user generated content

Link to new User Generated Content section in Conformance

This is an example of a way that an outcome can be used for additional requirements for User Generated Content. Since the Outcome template is being revised, the organization of the outcome will change as we update the template for Outcomes. This example is taken from Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0. The Text Alternatives subgroup continues to develop outcomes, methods and how-to material for Text Alternatives.

Can we move the example of a text alternative outcome for user generated content to CFC for addition to the next update of WCAG 3?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree 4
Agree with the following changes 5
Disagree for the following reason 2

Details

Responder New example of an outcome: Text alternative for user generated content Comments
Andrew Kirkpatrick Agree with the following changes It isn't clear if the expectation of the outcome is that all of the bulleted items are met in order to meet the outcome or if one is sufficient.

Also seems like the outcome might be mis-titled, this outcome is more about "Supporting the addition of text alternatives for user-generated content".
Jeanne F Spellman Agree I agree with AWK's suggestion of a title change. Since Outcome template is being revised, I didn't want to get into any requirements of the list. We were discussing giving points for doing the bulleted items, but the Scoring also needs to be revised, so I left it blurry. It's not the final version, for sure. Laura, the decorative images is a different method, this one is only concerned with user generated content. I know we will have to sort out the intersection of the two, but that is later when we get more of the templates solidified.
Suzanne Taylor Agree Although this needs additional work, it is acknowledged in the document that this is a rough example just to give an idea of the type of Outcome that might be provided should this proposal move forward.
Peter Korn Agree Second Jeanne's agreement with Andrew's re-titling. I don't follow Laura's logic on Decorative Images, and why if they remain a general part of WCAG 3 why they wouldn't also be something a user could likewise generate.
Makoto Ueki Agree with the following changes +1 to AWK on the title change. My understanding is that the objective is to show the direction we are heading to. We, the Alt Text subgroup, will add more possible items later to the list and figure out how to do the scoring.
Gundula Niemann Disagree for the following reason In fact it is requested, that if a platform offers the possibility to upload non-text content for users, it also provides functionality to provide a text alternative. Yet this does not become clear.
Some details:
- It says "a text alternative mechanism for non-text content is available via user agents and assistive technologies". I understand the user agent and assistive technology must create the text alternative. Looking at further statements, this does not seem to be rue.
- It says "To support users in creating accessible content, the publisher of the user generated content:" A text alternative is only aspect of accessibility, so this statment should not claim that accessibility is covered by the sequel.
- It says "Provides functionality for adding non-text content, then users are able to modify programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content." I uderstand the platform must provide a functionality to add non-text content, and them magically he/she can add a text alternative. The source says "If the authoring tool provides ..." So is it a grammar error?
- It says "Provides the functionality for adding non-text content, when users enter programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content AND the text alternatives are automatically saved and suggested by the authoring tool, if the same non-text content is reused." Again a grammar eroor?
Not all sentences starting with 'provides' seem to lack an if. Does this one?
- Two statements start with "If the repair attempt ..." There is no repair attempt mentioned. What is it? Is it requested?
- Why have the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0 B.2.3 been re-tailored instead if being referred to directly?
(list is not complete)
I have the impression that the issues I see cannot be resolved with some changes, therefore I disagree.
Are the methods part of the CfC?





Charles Adams Agree
Shawn Lauriat Agree with the following changes [others have covered the changes I'd want to see for this draft]
Wilco Fiers Disagree for the following reason While I like the idea of having ATAG be part of WCAG 3, the AG charter seems fairly clear that the intent is for us not to do so. Doing it despite that doesn't sit right with me.

Secondly, I'm concerned with how different this outcome is from what we have as outcomes in the current draft. If we intend to write this into some kind of plain language requirement that has a scoring model with it, then we should do that. As it is, this seems rushed.
Laura Carlson Agree with the following changes Agree, if the Decorative Images method is not used or linked in this outcome.

In WCAG 2.x pure decoration is "serving only an aesthetic purpose, providing no information, and having no functionality". I don't know why we would change it.
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-pure-decoration

If the purpose of an image is purely aesthetic or if it is redundant and does not relate to the content of the document, then use a null attribute alt="". If an image has a purpose then the user should be aware that it is there and what its intended purpose is.

A null alt attribute will be completely ignored by assistive technologies and will also prevent a person who is blind from knowing about and sharing the image. The author would be deciding that informing a user who is blind that the image on the page isn't important or worthwhile for them to know about, and so by using alt="" that fact is completely hidden from them. To me, ultimately, it is about treating people with visual disabilities as visitors who access content differently, but equally. I want to treat them fairly and on an even footing: "deciding" that they likely don't want to know that an image is on the page is a serious decision to be taken - would you for example not include the image, and instead simply provide a link that read "click here to see a picture of a "Someone smiling and eating a salad"? I think not. Let's try to do our best to treat people with visual disabilities with that same kind of respect - afford them a textual glance of the image that all sighted users will make when the page first loads (and avoid going into too much detail, because few sighted users are going to study the image thoroughly).

So seriously let's consider if an image is purely decorative. If it isn't, author's should try to concisely explain what the image is in the context of the document's purpose without overly duplicating the text in which the image is embedded.

As Eric Bailey, recently wrote:

"In modern web design and development, displaying an image is a highly intentional act. Alternate descriptions allow us to explain the content of the image, and in doing so, *communicate why it is worth including.* Just because an image displays something fanciful doesn't mean it isn't worth describing. Announcing its presence ensures that anyone, regardless of ability or circumstance, can fully understand your digital experience."
https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2021/06/img-alt-attribute-alternate-description-decorative/
Bruce Bailey Agree with the following changes I think the "repair" idea should be moved into a different outcome. Prompting someone to provide better alt text is okay and good, and seems to be what this outcome is about. But when I read "repair" it makes me think there is an AI guessing at the alt text. I think that is different than where ATAG was going.
----
Post call note: ATAG uses "assist authors in repairing" and "repair assistance" so my concern is strictly editorial. Please track a little closer to the literal ATAG phrasing. The bullets currently mentioning "repair attempt" reads quite different to me than ATAG 2.0 SC B.3.2.1.

2. User Generated Content (a new subsection of conformance)

Link to new User Generated Content section in Conformance

Can we move the User Generated Content section to CFC for addition to the next update of WCAG 3?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree 4
Agree with the following changes 5
Disagree for the following reason 2

Details

Responder User Generated Content (a new subsection of conformance)Comments
Andrew Kirkpatrick Disagree for the following reason For large sites, there can be UGC that is created by employees, so "Any content provided by employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers of the publisher is not User Generated Content" seems problematic. For example, at https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem/transparency-issue-when-uploading-png-to-website/td-p/12217792 users submit questions and responses are made into the system in the same way by other customers or employees. While there may be additional leverage to get employees to add accessible content in such a forum, depending on the type of content that can be added it may not be so simple. I think that this last sentence is going to be problematic and we should remove or revise.
Jeanne F Spellman Agree AWK, it is difficult to separate UGC from web hosting sites. That was the intent. I like Suzanne's suggestions. I hope that clarifies the sentence for AWK and Laura. Perhaps:
"User Generated Content is provided for publication by visitors where the content platform specifically welcomes and encourages it. User-generated content is content that is submitted through a user interface designed specifically for members of the public and customers. Use of the same user interface as an authoring tool for publication of content by agents of the publisher (such as employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers) <strong>acting on behalf of the publisher</strong> does not make that content User Generated Content.

I like Laura's suggested change in the Accessibility statement, although it needs some work in wording it.
Suzanne Taylor Agree with the following changes Suggested Change 1:

Current: “User Generated Content is provided for publication by visitors where the content platform specifically welcomes and encourages it. Any content provided by employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers of the publisher is not User Generated Content.”

Issue: The issue here, to me, is about trying to track the relationships over time. What if the account seems to belong to a dog, and the dog lives in a house with 5 people, one of whom is an employee from 2019-2023? What if an employee takes a leave of absence and travels, but uses the system to log their adventures?

Suggested: “User Generated Content is provided for publication by visitors where the content platform specifically welcomes and encourages it. User-generated content is content that is submitted through a user interface designed specifically for members of the public and customers. Use of the same user interface as an authoring tool for publication of content by agents of the publisher (such as employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers) does not make that content User Generated Content.”

Suggested Change 2:

Current: “Utilize AI tools as they become available and feasible to use, to search User Generated Content and help repair accessibility problems.”

Issue: I think the best time in the content-life-cycle for applying AI should be left to a more granular location in WCAG 3, such as in the Methods. This way, AI could provide suggested text, which the user could edit, as already hinted toward in the draft alt-text outcome.

Suggested: “Utilize AI tools as they become available and feasible to use, to help prevent and repair accessibility problems.”





Peter Korn Agree I second Jeanne's agreement with Suzanne's first suggested change. I don't think that change addresses the concern Andrew raises however, and I suggest we add Andrew's concern to an Editor's Note on what we seek comment on.

As directed by AGWG when we discussed an earlier proposal about 3rd party content a few weeks ago (vs. this narrowed proposal for user-generated content), we discussed Laura's first concern about an employee of an organization uploading content to a 3rd party social media site (e.g. Flickr, YouTube, etc.). We were concerned about the difficulties in distinguishing between the case of employees formally tasked with maintaining a formal social media presence of an organization from the case of an employee making a personal post that relates i some way to the business of their employer. For example, a member of a movie studio's PR team posting on that studio's Facebook site vs. an employee making a posting about how they enjoyed a movie that their employer produced. We were unable to develop an approach to this, and we therefore felt this should be something we called out to explicitly seek comment on in this draft.

I also like Suzanne's 2nd suggested change about utilization of AI tools.
Makoto Ueki Agree with the following changes +1 to Peter. I'd also like to see feedback from the a11y community on this.
Gundula Niemann Disagree for the following reason It says "Any content provided by employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers of the publisher is not User Generated Content. ".
A visitor may be an employee of the same company that provides the platform. he/she might not at all be in charge for the platform itself. This is likely in large companies, but also common in small ones.
Let me give you a real example: There is a crafting forum set up by a yarn and craft supplies company. Literally one man is in charge of it, two further woman moderate the forum, which means, they are visitors with some privileges. Other employees of the same company might and can only contribute to the forum as visitors, and being in charge for logistics, advertising or whatever, they do it only for their hobby.
Therefore I do not agree to the exception. Everyone who is a visitor (role end-user) in the platform generates user generated content.
Apart from the last paragraph being duplicated, I feel it falls short. All user generated content should be tested, fine. But what the publisher really should do is provide features so the user can make his/her content accessible.
----
I would like to point to the fact that Question 4 lacks a free text field.
On Q4:
First, if the content is sent to the author per mail, and the author adds it, it is not user generated in the technical sense, therefore I would drop "or imported from content otherwise contributed to the author (for example, sent via email)"
As in Q3, I object to the exception on employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers.
Charles Adams Agree
Shawn Lauriat Agree with the following changes [others have covered the changes I'd want to see for this draft]
Wilco Fiers Agree with the following changes I'm not sold on these three items under "steps to conform". The words "clearly identify" seem fairly open ended, and not something for a conformance section. To who should it be clear?

Why would it be required to state what steps were taken to encourage accessible UGC? What benefit does writing it down bring?

Third, "Utilize AI tools" seems too open-ended for a normative requirement. What are the circumstances under which it becomes required for someone to use such tools? How does that work retroactively. If a tool becomes available today, do I have to go back and apply it to old content?

I don't think these conformance requirements are sufficiently measurable. This needs to be improved before going to CFC.
Laura Carlson Agree with the following changes Agree, if in reference to:
"Any content provided by employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers of the publisher is not User Generated Content" the following is clarified:

Does this include an employee uploading photos to a company or organization's Flickr or YouTube account? Is the publisher the company or organization or Flickr/YouTube? Example: https://www.youtube.com/user/UMNDuluth These use cases should NOT be exempt.


2. For the text "all of the following should be indicated alongside the User Generated Content or in an Accessibility Statement published on the site or product":

The word "should" is changed to "MUST" and it includes that if it is in an Accessibility Statement that it must be also be linked to alongside the User Generated Content so the user doesn't need to hunt for the an Accessibility Statement hidden somewhere on a website.
Bruce Bailey Agree

3. Glossary Definition of User Generated Content

Link to the User Generated Content in the Glossary

Can we move the User Generated Content definition in the Glossary to CFC for addition to the next update of WCAG 3?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree 5
Agree with the following changes 4
Disagree for the following reason 1

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

Details

Responder Glossary Definition of User Generated Content
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Jeanne F Spellman Agree
Suzanne Taylor Agree with the following changes I would suggest adding "owner or" to the second half of the first sentence as shown below. This is to be consistent with the reference earlier in the sentence:

"User generated content is content that is created by site visitors, either by using the authoring environment provided by the owner or author, or imported from content otherwise contributed to the owner or author (for example, sent via email)."

I would suggest replacing:

"Any content provided by employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers of the publisher is not User Generated Content. "

With:

"Anyone acting as a site visitor may submit content that is User Generated Content. However, use of the same user interface or submission process as an authoring tool for publication of content through agents of the owner or author (such as employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers) does not make that content User Generated Content."

Then, I think an issue that will generally come to mind is, "Shouldn't certain users set an example, though?" As suggested earlier, I think there should be some handling of users who have some type of elevated status. For example, for alt-text, these users might be the focus of a method for an Outcome about encouraging quality alt-text on the platform. Categories of users to consider:

* Verified users (issue here is that often their status has nothing to do with the platform)
* "Local Guides"
* "Mods"
* Employees using the platform in their employee role as part of their job
* ...
Peter Korn Agree I agree with Suzanne's first suggestion - adding a second "owner or" to the glossary definition.

I don't follow the logic behind Suzanne's second suggestion. Is the suggestion that ONLY users with some elevated status (e.g. certain classes of volunteers of a site like Wikipedia) be prompted for things like ALT text? Or rather, is the suggestion that these users have a slightly modified interface that REQUIRES things like ALT text? Or something else...?
Makoto Ueki Agree with the following changes +1 to Suzanne's first suggestion.
Gundula Niemann Disagree for the following reason
Charles Adams Agree
Shawn Lauriat Agree Good enough for this draft.
Wilco Fiers Agree with the following changes I'm not so sure that the relationship between the owner of the platform, and the content author should be the deciding factor on this exception. Rather I think what matters is how that content is presented. There's a big difference between an official YouTube video, and a video posted by someone who happens to contract for Google. This wouldn't be testable either.

I think what matters is how that content is presented. If site visitors can't tell if a post is from an employee or not, there's no reason to treat it any different IMO.

The "authorized volunteers" thing is a bit problematic too. How do is a tester supposed to draw the line on what is an authorized volunteer, and someone with slightly different permissions from a first-time sign-up. Maybe someone automatically gets additional permissions after their posts have an approval rating of 90% or something.
Laura Carlson Agree with the following changes Agree with both of Suzanne's suggestions. If, not both then neither.
Bruce Bailey Agree

More details on responses

  • Andrew Kirkpatrick: last responded on 30, July 2021 at 14:37 (UTC)
  • Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 2, August 2021 at 10:51 (UTC)
  • Suzanne Taylor: last responded on 3, August 2021 at 04:04 (UTC)
  • Peter Korn: last responded on 3, August 2021 at 05:35 (UTC)
  • Makoto Ueki: last responded on 3, August 2021 at 11:51 (UTC)
  • Gundula Niemann: last responded on 3, August 2021 at 14:12 (UTC)
  • Charles Adams: last responded on 3, August 2021 at 14:23 (UTC)
  • Shawn Lauriat: last responded on 3, August 2021 at 14:33 (UTC)
  • Wilco Fiers: last responded on 3, August 2021 at 14:37 (UTC)
  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 3, August 2021 at 15:31 (UTC)
  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 3, August 2021 at 15:37 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Gregg Vanderheiden
  2. Chris Wilson
  3. Lisa Seeman-Horwitz
  4. Janina Sajka
  5. Shawn Lawton Henry
  6. Katie Haritos-Shea
  7. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  8. Chus Garcia
  9. Steve Faulkner
  10. Patrick Lauke
  11. David MacDonald
  12. Gez Lemon
  13. Preety Kumar
  14. Georgios Grigoriadis
  15. Stefan Schnabel
  16. Romain Deltour
  17. Chris Blouch
  18. Jedi Lin
  19. Kimberly Patch
  20. Glenda Sims
  21. Ian Pouncey
  22. Alastair Campbell
  23. Léonie Watson
  24. David Sloan
  25. Mary Jo Mueller
  26. John Kirkwood
  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. Denis Boudreau
  57. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  58. Francis Storr
  59. Rick Johnson
  60. David Swallow
  61. Aparna Pasi
  62. Gregorio Pellegrino
  63. Melanie Philipp
  64. Jake Abma
  65. Nicole Windmann
  66. Oliver Keim
  67. Ruoxi Ran
  68. Wendy Reid
  69. Scott O'Hara
  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. Fernanda Bonnin
  90. Jared Batterman
  91. Raja Kushalnagar
  92. Jan Williams
  93. Todd Libby
  94. Isabel Holdsworth
  95. Julia Chen
  96. Marcos Franco Murillo
  97. Yutaka Suzuki
  98. Azlan Cuttilan
  99. Jennifer Strickland
  100. Joe Humbert
  101. Ben Tillyer
  102. Charu Pandhi
  103. Poornima Badhan Subramanian
  104. Alain Vagner
  105. Roberto Scano
  106. Rain Breaw Michaels
  107. Kun Zhang
  108. Jaunita George
  109. Regina Sanchez
  110. Shawn Thompson
  111. Thomas Brunet
  112. Kenny Dunsin
  113. Jen Goulden
  114. Mike Beganyi
  115. Ronny Hendriks
  116. Breixo Pastoriza Barcia
  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. Stephanie Louraine
  128. Rachele DiTullio
  129. Jan Jaap de Groot
  130. Rebecca Monteleone
  131. Ian Kersey
  132. Peter Bossley
  133. Anastasia Lanz
  134. Michael Keane
  135. Chiara De Martin
  136. Giacomo Petri
  137. Andrew Barakat
  138. Devanshu Chandra
  139. Xiao (Helen) Zhou
  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. Tiffany Burtin
  182. Shane Dittmar
  183. Nayan Padrai
  184. Niamh Kelly
  185. Matt Argomaniz Matthew Argomaniz
  186. Frankie Wolf
  187. Kimberly McGee
  188. Ahson Rana
  189. Carolina Crespo
  190. humor927 humor927
  191. Samantha McDaniel
  192. Matthäus Rojek
  193. Phong Tony Le
  194. Bram Janssens
  195. Graham Ritchie
  196. Aleksandar Cindrikj
  197. Jeroen Hulscher
  198. Alina Vayntrub
  199. Marco Sabidussi
  200. John Toles
  201. Jeanne Erickson Cooley
  202. Theo Hale
  203. Gert-Jan Vercauteren
  204. Karla Rubiano
  205. Aashutosh K
  206. Hidde de Vries
  207. Julian Kittelson-Aldred
  208. Roland Buss
  209. Aditya Surendranath
  210. Avon Kuo
  211. Elizabeth Patrick
  212. Nat Tarnoff
  213. Filippo Zorzi
  214. Mike Pedersen
  215. Rachael Yomtoob

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.