W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire LVTF and COGA FPWD ready February 16th 2016

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2016-02-11 to 2016-02-18.

8 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

LVTF Requirements document ready for FPWD
COGA Task Force Roadmap and Gap Analysis ready for FPWD

1. LVTF Requirements document ready for FPWD

The 'Accessibility Requirements for People with Low Vision' document is ready for FPWD. This is not a final version of the document. We are looking for critical or substantial issues that will block the release of this document for public review. Any substantive issues with the LVTF requirements doc can be logged in Github.

NOTE: "@@" in the document indicates information that will be added before FPWD goes live, and do not represent potential substantive changes to the document.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
This is good enough for FPWD. Go for it!	8
There are substantial issues that need to be dealt before it goes for wider review.

Details

Responder	LVTF Requirements document ready for FPWD	Comments
David MacDonald	This is good enough for FPWD. Go for it!	I kind of wish there was a category for other. I have some concerns. 1) There is a lot of great information here. There are not any success criteria written yet that I can see, although some could be extracted, and written as such. I don't think calling something a "user need" is the same as making an author success criteria requirement. So it currently has no author requirements that can be rolled into an extension. Is that coming after public feedback? 2) I think requiring text to zoom without using page zoom is an issue that we came up against, and will elicit significant push back. These days most responsive sites will flip to one column when the user zooms in with page zoom. I think "a mechanism is available" language might help here. "a mechanism is available" to zoom x% without requiring horizontal scroll. If the responsive break points solve it, then may "text" zoom may not be required. CSS and boxes with text zoom can be a nightmare ...
Michael Cooper	This is good enough for FPWD. Go for it!	There are images that may need long descriptions. Perhaps they're described in nearby text but I'd say that's debatable. We don't want room for debate on that in a publication about low vision. All the instances of "draft note" should be styled similarly; I see at least two different styles and some of them are not sufficiently attention grabbing. I see user needs styled in green. I think that and other document conventions need to be introduced at the top. I'll go with saying these edits are all editorial, so mark it as good to go. But they are substantial editorial and will take some time to do before publication, it's not ready to go in its current form or this week.
Laura Carlson	This is good enough for FPWD. Go for it!
Joshue O'Connor	This is good enough for FPWD. Go for it!
Marc Johlic	This is good enough for FPWD. Go for it!	Agree with the comments raised by Michael and David.
Katie Haritos-Shea	This is good enough for FPWD. Go for it!
Andrew Kirkpatrick	This is good enough for FPWD. Go for it!
Sarah Horton	This is good enough for FPWD. Go for it!

2. COGA Task Force Roadmap and Gap Analysis ready for FPWD

The COGA Task Force draft 'Roadmap and Gap Analysis' is ready for FPWD.

This is not a final version of the document. We are looking for critical or substantial issues that will block the release of this document for public review.

NOTE: This doc will have an abstract and acknowledgments added shortly. It has some items marked as 'To do' that will be addressed before publication as well as some minor formatting issues that will also be addressed, that are not substantive.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
This is good enough for FPWD. Go for it!	3
There are substantial issues that need to be dealt before it goes for wider review.	3

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder	COGA Task Force Roadmap and Gap Analysis ready for FPWD	Comments
David MacDonald
Michael Cooper	There are substantial issues that need to be dealt before it goes for wider review.	Links to rawgit need to be removed, those are temp URIs. I'm also reluctant to publish with lots of links to wiki especially when they seem to be including major content by reference rather than working into this publication. I prefer this not have been sent for approval without the abstract. Though as the person who will likely be stuck writing or substantially editing it, I supposed I won't make that a blocking content. I'm confused by the heading 1.5 status of this document because there is already a required section with that heading. It's too confusing to have the same heading twice. I'm unsure if the overall structure is as intended or as facilitates best understanding, particularly in section 2. There are sentence fragments and stuff. While I get this is just a first draft, it needs a better editorial quality before drawing attention. There seem to be a lot of inline links that really should be formal references. We don't want to publish without sorting that like we did the user research.
Laura Carlson	There are substantial issues that need to be dealt before it goes for wider review.	Michael Cooper's comments should be resolved before it goes for wider review.
Joshue O'Connor	This is good enough for FPWD. Go for it!	After tidy up, and some of Michaels comments are addressed I'm happy for this to go out.
Marc Johlic	This is good enough for FPWD. Go for it!
Katie Haritos-Shea	This is good enough for FPWD. Go for it!
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Sarah Horton	There are substantial issues that need to be dealt before it goes for wider review.