W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Publish new WCAG edited recommendation and techniques

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2016-04-15 to 2016-04-20.

9 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. New WCAG edited recommendation
  2. Editorial changes to Understanding 1.4.3 #177
  3. Need to change "Understanding SC 3.3.2" as it does not accurately reflect what the SC says.(related to #164)
  4. [LowVis - New Technique] Graphics contrast is unmentioned (except as exceptions) (#96)
  5. [LowVis - New Technique] Using a Decorative Icon Font
  6. [LowVis - New Technique] Providing an On-Screen Text Alternative for an Icon Font
  7. [LowVis - New Technique] Providing an Off-Screen Text Alternative for an Icon Font

1. New WCAG edited recommendation

The working group is chartered to publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Recommendation to incorporate editorial errata only. I'm happy to say we know have that document ready for working group review. Please view the new WCAG edited recommendation (Diff-marked version) and let us know your thoughts.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I'm very happy to publish this edited recommendation. 6
I'm happy to publish this edited recommendation with the following changes. 3
I don't think we should publish for the following reasons.

Details

Responder New WCAG edited recommendation
Laura Carlson I'm very happy to publish this edited recommendation.
Makoto Ueki I'm happy to publish this edited recommendation with the following changes. In SC 1.4.3, the word "minimum" was removed from exception for "Logotypes". How about SC 1.4.6?

The same word "minimum" is still used in SC 1.4.6. It can be read that "Logotypes" does NOT have "minimum" requirement, BUT "extended" requirements or something else. It was confusing when JIS working group translated this part into Japanese.

I would suggest that we should remove "minimum" from SC 1.4.6 as well.
Wayne Dick I'm very happy to publish this edited recommendation. I think it is time to stop refining WCAG 2.0.
Andrew Kirkpatrick I'm happy to publish this edited recommendation with the following changes. Agree with Makoto.
Marc Johlic I'm very happy to publish this edited recommendation.
Joshue O'Connor I'm happy to publish this edited recommendation with the following changes. Makotos suggestions are fine with me.
Greg Lowney I'm very happy to publish this edited recommendation.
Alastair Campbell I'm very happy to publish this edited recommendation. Agree with Makoto's sugestion, keeps it consistent.
Maureen Kraft I'm very happy to publish this edited recommendation.

2. Editorial changes to Understanding 1.4.3 #177

Some small changes have been made to provide an indication of what was agreed in Issue 157, such as re-arranging paragraphs.

Please review the pull request on GitHub: Editorial changes to Understanding 1.4.3 #177.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept this pull request. 9
Accept with the following changes.
Do not accept at this time.

Details

Responder Editorial changes to Understanding 1.4.3 #177
Laura Carlson Accept this pull request.
Makoto Ueki Accept this pull request.
Wayne Dick Accept this pull request.
Andrew Kirkpatrick Accept this pull request.
Marc Johlic Accept this pull request.
Joshue O'Connor Accept this pull request.
Greg Lowney Accept this pull request.
Alastair Campbell Accept this pull request. I'd raise a mild issue about using 'points' in WCAG. It has been a source of confusion for designers/developers (i.e. what is a point online?). It is a wider thing than this pull request, would a separate issue be best for this issue?
Maureen Kraft Accept this pull request.

3. Need to change "Understanding SC 3.3.2" as it does not accurately reflect what the SC says.(related to #164)

Please review the following,related to #164 on GitHub: Changes proposed by Sailesh.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the changes as proposed 4
Accept with the following changes 3
Do not accept these changes for the following reasons. 1

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

Details

Responder Need to change "Understanding SC 3.3.2" as it does not accurately reflect what the SC says.(related to #164)
Laura Carlson
Makoto Ueki Accept the changes as proposed
Wayne Dick Accept the changes as proposed
Andrew Kirkpatrick Accept with the following changes I'd like to suggest replacing the second changed paragraph in the pull request with:
"This success criteria uses the phrase "when content requires user input" to refer to elements such as form controls that accept user input and to indicate that it does not apply to content on a page such as hyperlinks or linked images which are interactive but are not user input controls."

I'd like to remove the 3rd paragraph as I don't think it says anything that is needed

The fourth paragraph is likely to cause a problem. Some of the new examples don't meet the described requirement.
Marc Johlic Accept the changes as proposed
Joshue O'Connor Accept with the following changes Am happy to support Andrews suggested edits.
Greg Lowney Accept with the following changes It does seem that the explanation doesn't exactly match the wording of the SC, in that the latter does not limit its scope to elements that take *data* input, but instead seems to also include those that take simple actions (e.g. a push button or list box).

There is also some ambiguity in how the SC says it applies to content that "requires" user input. The proposed Understanding text explicitly lists hyperlinks as an example of content that does *not* require a label, and while it certainly presents its contents and so can be useful even if the user has no intention of clicking it, the same is true of a text box that comes pre-filled with a meaningful value but can be edited if the user wants to change that value. I think the intention of the SC is to cover the latter, but in doing so the wording also seems to cover the hyperlink.

(If we update the SCs in the future, I would change the phrasing to clarify that the SC is not referring merely to controls required to complete the form, e.g. password.)
Alastair Campbell Accept the changes as proposed
Maureen Kraft Do not accept these changes for the following reasons. Need further clarification or summarization of the issue to better understand the changes.

4. [LowVis - New Technique] Graphics contrast is unmentioned (except as exceptions) (#96)

Please review the following new technique from the LVTF Using sufficient contrast for images that convey information.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept as proposed 1
Accept with the following changes 2
Do not accept at this time 2

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

Details

Responder [LowVis - New Technique] Graphics contrast is unmentioned (except as exceptions) (#96)
Laura Carlson Would have preferred LVTF checking it first but will go with group consenus. Happy to have all input.
Makoto Ueki Do not accept at this time My understanding is that SC 1.4.3 only applies to text. So this can't be a sufficient technique for SC 1.4.3. Doing this doesn't mean meeting SC 1.4.3.
Wayne Dick Accept as proposed
Andrew Kirkpatrick Do not accept at this time As written it isn't clear that 1.4.3 applies in this technique. 1.4.3 is about text and images of text.
Marc Johlic Accept with the following changes Agree that this may need to be it's own SC (or under a SC) - similar to 1.4.3 but takes into account iconography and other images meant to convey information or controls.
Joshue O'Connor
Greg Lowney
Alastair Campbell
Maureen Kraft Accept with the following changes Having colored slices in a pie chart even with sufficient contrast fails 1.4.1 Use of Color. Please add a statement that the slices also need to have differing patterns or text to differentiate them from each other. For example, at a given luminosity, red and green slices can pass minimum contrast requirements however for someone with red / green color blindness they will not know which is red or green and any reference to the "green" slice in the legend would lead to confusion or loss of information.

5. [LowVis - New Technique] Using a Decorative Icon Font

Please review the following new technique from the LVTF Using a Decorative Icon Font.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept as proposed 3
Accept with the following changes 1
Do not accept at this time 1

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

Details

Responder [LowVis - New Technique] Using a Decorative Icon Font
Laura Carlson Would have preferred LVTF checking it first. bit will go with group consensus. Happy to have all input.
Makoto Ueki Accept as proposed
Wayne Dick Accept as proposed
Andrew Kirkpatrick Accept with the following changes This seems good conceptually. I think that the procedure may need to be clarified.
Marc Johlic Accept as proposed
Joshue O'Connor
Greg Lowney
Alastair Campbell
Maureen Kraft Do not accept at this time WCAG WG has asked to rework since this technique seems to be discussing Unicode characters as opposed to icon fonts, e.g. Wingdings.

6. [LowVis - New Technique] Providing an On-Screen Text Alternative for an Icon Font

Please review the following new technique from the LVTF Providing an On-Screen Text Alternative for an Icon Font.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept as proposed 1
Accept with the following changes 2
Do not accept at this time 1

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

Details

Responder [LowVis - New Technique] Providing an On-Screen Text Alternative for an Icon Font
Laura Carlson Would have preferred LVTF checking it first but will go with group consensus. Happy to have all input.
Makoto Ueki Accept with the following changes I'd like to make sure if we must use <figure> and <figcaption> element. Is the following code also acceptable?? If acceptable, I'd like to add the following as "Example 2" to this technique.

<p>
<span class="icon-star" aria-hidden="true"></span>
Favorite
</p>
Wayne Dick Accept as proposed
Andrew Kirkpatrick Accept with the following changes I have to wonder if this is too specific. Is the figure element needed for this? Is it an icon font if there is no text? (this may just be that something is missing in the example code)
Marc Johlic
Joshue O'Connor
Greg Lowney
Alastair Campbell
Maureen Kraft Do not accept at this time Rework needed per WCAG WG

7. [LowVis - New Technique] Providing an Off-Screen Text Alternative for an Icon Font

Please review the following new technique from the LVTF Providing an Off-Screen Text Alternative for an Icon Font.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept as proposed 2
Accept with the following changes
Do not accept at this time 3

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

Details

Responder [LowVis - New Technique] Providing an Off-Screen Text Alternative for an Icon Font
Laura Carlson Would have preferred LVTF checking it first but will go with group consensus. Happy to have all input.
Makoto Ueki Do not accept at this time I don't like this kind of hidden text. We can use aria-label attribute for the icon font instead. Is there any reason why the off-screen text must be used rather than aria-label?
Wayne Dick Accept as proposed There is an implicit assumption in this that the only people who need alternative text do not need to see it or are regular screen reader users.

For years architects complained about including wheelchair ramps into the plan. Today many new structures include ramps and they are beautiful.

We are too easy on information architects. Why don't the learn how to make alternative text beautiful.
Andrew Kirkpatrick Do not accept at this time The examples need to be clarified - not sure that this one actually uses an icon font
Marc Johlic Accept as proposed Agree with Makoto in preferring to use aria-label, but accepting this as another alternative for folks to use.
Joshue O'Connor
Greg Lowney
Alastair Campbell
Maureen Kraft Do not accept at this time Rework needed per WCAG WG

More details on responses

  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 17, April 2016 at 11:54 (UTC)
  • Makoto Ueki: last responded on 18, April 2016 at 08:17 (UTC)
  • Wayne Dick: last responded on 18, April 2016 at 20:23 (UTC)
  • Andrew Kirkpatrick: last responded on 19, April 2016 at 14:30 (UTC)
  • Marc Johlic: last responded on 19, April 2016 at 14:32 (UTC)
  • Joshue O'Connor: last responded on 19, April 2016 at 15:01 (UTC)
  • Greg Lowney: last responded on 19, April 2016 at 15:02 (UTC)
  • Alastair Campbell: last responded on 19, April 2016 at 15:35 (UTC)
  • Maureen Kraft: last responded on 19, April 2016 at 16:35 (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. Peter Korn
  14. Preety Kumar
  15. Bruce Bailey
  16. Georgios Grigoriadis
  17. Stefan Schnabel
  18. Romain Deltour
  19. Chris Blouch
  20. Jedi Lin
  21. Jeanne F Spellman
  22. Wilco Fiers
  23. Kimberly Patch
  24. Glenda Sims
  25. Ian Pouncey
  26. Léonie Watson
  27. David Sloan
  28. Mary Jo Mueller
  29. Peter Heery
  30. John Kirkwood
  31. Detlev Fischer
  32. Reinaldo Ferraz
  33. Matt Garrish
  34. Mike Gifford
  35. Loïc Martínez Normand
  36. Mike Pluke
  37. Justine Pascalides
  38. Chris Loiselle
  39. Tzviya Siegman
  40. Jan McSorley
  41. Sailesh Panchang
  42. Cristina Mussinelli
  43. Jonathan Avila
  44. John Rochford
  45. Sarah Horton
  46. Sujasree Kurapati
  47. Jatin Vaishnav
  48. Sam Ogami
  49. Kevin White
  50. E.A. Draffan
  51. Paul Bohman
  52. JaEun Jemma Ku
  53. 骅 杨
  54. Victoria Clark
  55. Avneesh Singh
  56. Mitchell Evan
  57. Michael Gower
  58. biao liu
  59. Scott McCormack
  60. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  61. Francis Storr
  62. Rick Johnson
  63. David Swallow
  64. Aparna Pasi
  65. Gregorio Pellegrino
  66. Melanie Philipp
  67. Jake Abma
  68. Nicole Windmann
  69. Oliver Keim
  70. Gundula Niemann
  71. Ruoxi Ran
  72. Wendy Reid
  73. Scott O'Hara
  74. Charles Adams
  75. Muhammad Saleem
  76. Amani Ali
  77. Trevor Bostic
  78. Jamie Herrera
  79. Shinya Takami
  80. Karen Herr
  81. Kathy Eng
  82. Cybele Sack
  83. Audrey Maniez
  84. Jennifer Delisi
  85. Arthur Soroken
  86. Daniel Bjorge
  87. Kai Recke
  88. David Fazio
  89. Daniel Montalvo
  90. Mario Chacón-Rivas
  91. Michael Gilbert
  92. Caryn Pagel
  93. Achraf Othman
  94. Helen Burge
  95. Fernanda Bonnin
  96. Christina Adams
  97. Jared Batterman
  98. Raja Kushalnagar
  99. Jan Williams
  100. Todd Libby
  101. Isabel Holdsworth
  102. Julia Chen
  103. Marcos Franco Murillo
  104. Yutaka Suzuki
  105. Azlan Cuttilan
  106. Jennifer Strickland
  107. Joe Humbert
  108. Ben Tillyer
  109. Charu Pandhi
  110. Poornima Badhan Subramanian
  111. Alain Vagner
  112. Roberto Scano
  113. Rain Breaw Michaels
  114. Kun Zhang
  115. Jaunita George
  116. Regina Sanchez
  117. Shawn Thompson
  118. Thomas Brunet
  119. Kenny Dunsin
  120. Jen Goulden
  121. Mike Beganyi
  122. Ronny Hendriks
  123. Olivia Hogan-Stark
  124. Rashmi Katakwar
  125. Julie Rawe
  126. Duff Johnson
  127. Laura Miller
  128. Will Creedle
  129. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  130. Marie Csanady
  131. Meenakshi Das
  132. Perrin Anto
  133. Rachele DiTullio
  134. Jan Jaap de Groot
  135. Rebecca Monteleone
  136. Ian Kersey
  137. Peter Bossley
  138. Michael Keane
  139. Chiara De Martin
  140. Giacomo Petri
  141. Andrew Barakat
  142. Devanshu Chandra
  143. Xiao (Helen) Zhou
  144. Joe Lamyman
  145. Bryan Trogdon
  146. Mary Ann (MJ) Jawili
  147. 禹佳 陶
  148. 锦澄 王
  149. Stephen James
  150. Jay Mullen
  151. Thorsten Katzmann
  152. Tony Holland
  153. Kent Boucher
  154. Abbey Davis
  155. Phil Day
  156. Julia Kim
  157. Michelle Lana
  158. David Williams
  159. Mikayla Thompson
  160. Catherine Droege
  161. James Edwards
  162. Eric Hind
  163. Quintin Balsdon
  164. Mario Batušić
  165. David Cox
  166. Sazzad Mahamud
  167. Katy Brickley
  168. Kimberly Sarabia
  169. Corey Hinshaw
  170. Ashley Firth
  171. Daniel Harper-Wain
  172. Kiara Stewart
  173. DJ Chase
  174. Suji Sreerama
  175. Fred Edora
  176. Lori Oakley
  177. David Middleton
  178. Alyssa Priddy
  179. Young Choi
  180. Nichole Bui
  181. Julie Romanowski
  182. Eloisa Guerrero
  183. George Kuan
  184. YAPING LIN
  185. Justin Wilson
  186. Leonard Beasley
  187. Tiffany Burtin
  188. Shane Dittmar
  189. Nayan Padrai
  190. Niamh Kelly
  191. Matt Argomaniz Matthew Argomaniz
  192. Frankie Wolf
  193. Kimberly McGee
  194. Ahson Rana
  195. Carolina Crespo
  196. humor927 humor927
  197. Jackie Fei
  198. Samantha McDaniel
  199. Matthäus Rojek
  200. Phong Tony Le
  201. Bram Janssens
  202. Graham Ritchie
  203. Aleksandar Cindrikj
  204. Jeroen Hulscher
  205. Alina Vayntrub
  206. Marco Sabidussi
  207. John Toles
  208. Jeanne Erickson Cooley
  209. Theo Hale
  210. Gert-Jan Vercauteren
  211. Karla Rubiano
  212. Aashutosh K
  213. Hidde de Vries
  214. Julian Kittelson-Aldred
  215. Roland Buss
  216. Aditya Surendranath
  217. Avon Kuo
  218. Elizabeth Patrick
  219. Tj Squires
  220. Nat Tarnoff
  221. Illai Zeevi
  222. Filippo Zorzi
  223. Gleidson Ramos
  224. Mike Pedersen
  225. Rachael Yomtoob
  226. Oliver Habersetzer
  227. Irfan Mukhtar
  228. Sage Keriazes
  229. Tananda Darling
  230. Nina Krauß
  231. Demelza Feltham
  232. Ragvesh Sharma
  233. Shunguo Yan
  234. Nora GOUGANE

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.