W3C

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. Judy Brewer
  2. Gregg Vanderheiden
  3. Lisa Seeman-Horwitz
  4. Janina Sajka
  5. Michael Cooper
  6. Shawn Henry
  7. Katie Haritos-Shea
  8. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  9. Steve Faulkner
  10. Patrick Lauke
  11. Alistair Garrison
  12. Loretta Guarino Reid
  13. David MacDonald
  14. Markku Hakkinen
  15. Karen Myers
  16. Garry Grant
  17. Gez Lemon
  18. Peter Korn
  19. Preety Kumar
  20. Bruce Bailey
  21. Stefan Schnabel
  22. Romain Deltour
  23. Chris Blouch
  24. Wilhelm Joys Andersen
  25. John Foliot
  26. Jeanne F Spellman
  27. James Craig
  28. Wilco Fiers
  29. Kimberly Patch
  30. Glenda Sims
  31. Ian Pouncey
  32. Léonie Watson
  33. David Sloan
  34. Mary Jo Mueller
  35. John Kirkwood
  36. Detlev Fischer
  37. Michael Elledge
  38. Reinaldo Ferraz
  39. Fridolin Wild
  40. Shilpi Kapoor
  41. Matt Garrish
  42. Mike Pluke
  43. Charles Hall
  44. Justine Pascalides
  45. Vivienne Conway
  46. Alex Bernier
  47. Chris Loiselle
  48. Jan McSorley
  49. Sailesh Panchang
  50. Cristina Mussinelli
  51. Jonathan Avila
  52. Anthony Fernando
  53. John Rochford
  54. Sarah Horton
  55. Sujasree Kurapati
  56. Jatin Vaishnav
  57. Steve Lee
  58. Chaohai Ding
  59. E.A. Draffan
  60. Paul Bohman
  61. JaEun Jemma Ku
  62. 骅 杨
  63. Avneesh Singh
  64. Michael Gower
  65. Qing An
  66. Renaldo Bernard
  67. biao liu
  68. Kim Dirks
  69. Scott McCormack
  70. Denis Boudreau
  71. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  72. Shawn Lauriat
  73. Francis Storr
  74. Kris Anne Kinney
  75. Levon Spradlin
  76. Elizabeth Crutchfield
  77. Shari Butler
  78. Gian Wild
  79. David Swallow
  80. Aparna Pasi
  81. Gregorio Pellegrino
  82. Melanie Philipp
  83. Amanda Mace
  84. Andreas Savva
  85. Jake Abma
  86. Ian Smith
  87. Tobias Christian Jensen
  88. Nicole Windmann
  89. Abi James
  90. Oliver Keim
  91. Gundula Niemann
  92. Ruoxi Ran
  93. Richard Boardman
  94. Jennifer Chadwick
  95. Emily Barbenza
  96. Carlos Duarte
  97. Charles Adams
  98. Aaron Chu
  99. Muhammad Saleem
  100. Amani Ali
  101. Trevor Bostic
  102. Betsy Furler
  103. Kathy Eng
  104. Cybele Sack
  105. Jennifer Delisi
  106. Rafal Charlampowicz
  107. Robin Lazrus
  108. Shrirang Sahasrabudhe
  109. Christos Petrou
  110. Arthur Soroken
  111. Nicaise Dogbo
  112. Kai Recke
  113. David Fazio
  114. Daniel Montalvo
  115. Jennifer Korth
  116. Andrew Somers
  117. Michael Gilbert
  118. Caryn Pagel
  119. Achraf Othman
  120. Helen Burge
  121. Suzanne Taylor
  122. Fernanda Bonnin
  123. Jared Batterman
  124. Raja Kushalnagar
  125. Jan Williams
  126. Todd Libby
  127. Omar Bonilla
  128. Pascal Wentz
  129. Isabel Holdsworth
  130. Jennifer Zhang
  131. Francesco Mariani
  132. Sheri Byrne-Haber
  133. Sukriti Chadha
  134. Julia Chen
  135. Shuxin Ouyang
  136. Christopher Weidner
  137. mancang sun
  138. David Middleton
  139. Daniel Hark SOHN
  140. Scott Rubenstein
  141. Kyle Lachance
  142. Ela Gorla
  143. Jennifer Strickland
  144. Ben Tillyer
  145. Charu Pandhi
  146. Rain Breaw Michaels
  147. Daniele Marano
  148. Albert Kim
  149. Kun Zhang
  150. Santina Croniser
  151. Jaunita George
  152. Bhoomika Bhagchandani
  153. Melissa Douros
  154. Regina Sanchez
  155. Vijaya Gowri Perumal
  156. Aimee Ubbink
  157. Shawn Thompson
  158. Jeff Bernier
  159. Thomas Brunet
  160. Tolu Adegbite
  161. Kenny Dunsin
  162. Jen Goulden
  163. Jeff Kline
  164. Christopher Merrington
  165. Bernard Wang
  166. Thomas Murray
  167. Andrew Nevins
  168. Breixo Pastoriza Barcia
  169. Sam Waller
  170. Suzie Miller
  171. Rashmi Katakwar
  172. Hedda Peters
  173. Julie Rawe
  174. Laura Miller
  175. Will Creedle
  176. Lē Silveus McNamara
  177. Laurence Lewis
  178. Meenakshi Das
  179. Perrin Anto
  180. Jonathan Buonaspina
  181. Sally Britnell
  182. Vicki-Jane Appleton
  183. Michail Yasonik
  184. Tiffany Tyson
  185. Aileen Hackett
  186. Joseph Yang
  187. Briley O'Connor
  188. Stephanie Louraine
  189. Jo Otterbein
  190. Jan Jaap de Groot
  191. Sara Temby
  192. Rebecca Monteleone
  193. Natalia DeWitt
  194. Anna Wheler
  195. Ian Kersey
  196. Peter Bossley
  197. Anastasia Lanz
  198. Michael Keane
  199. Anitha Challa
  200. Achint Singh
  201. Corbin Lewis
  202. Andrew Barakat
  203. Devanshu Chandra
  204. Bryan Trogdon
  205. Mary Ann Jawili
  206. Stephen James

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