W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT/Silver Method Proposal

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2021-07-22 to 2021-07-27.

7 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Approval to move to CFC

1. Approval to move to CFC

Can we move the ACT/Silver Method Proposal to CFC for addition to the next update of WCAG 3?

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Agree	5
Agree with the following changes	1
Disagree for the following reason	1

Details

Responder	Approval to move to CFC	Comments
Gundula Niemann	Disagree for the following reason	the structure in Decorative images with Description Background (in fact references) Examples Tests Glossary is highly inconsistent to the structure in the subpoints for example for" Instructions for completing tasks" with Introduction Description Examples Tests Resources. The structure should be consistent throughout WCAG 3.
Kathy Eng	Agree	The Examples tab includes several formats. It would be helpful to identify that Tests are web only.
Rachael Bradley Montgomery	Agree
Laura Carlson	Agree with the following changes	Agree, if the decorative images content is not used. In WCAG 2.x pure decoration is "serving only an aesthetic purpose, providing no information, and having no functionality". Don't know why we would change it. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-pure-decoration
Jeanne F Spellman	Agree	This is a strong first step in building a new template for migrating WCAG 2.1 success criteria to outcomes and methods. It reduces the ambiguity in testing in the Methods. We need to show commenters from the FPWD that we are making progress on their comments. Even though this Method structure will change as we bring in more Methods, it is important to show progress and get feedback. In response to Gundula, it is different from the other Methods because we are proposing a new format. If the group agrees, we will start the process of moving the other Methods to the that new format.
Bruce Bailey	Agree	I agree that the proposed definition for decorative images is somewhat changed from 2.x and I think that is okay.
Andrew Kirkpatrick	Agree