W3C

Results of Questionnaire Silver Requirements Update

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2019-04-11 to 2019-05-01.

17 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Design Principles
  2. Requirements

1. Design Principles

The Silver Design Principles are based on the requirements of WCAG 2.0 and build on those requirements to meet needs identified in the Silver research.

Accessibility guidelines should:

  1. Support the needs of a wide range of people with disabilities and recognize that people have individual and multiple needs.
  2. Support a measurement and conformance structure that includes guidance for a broad range of disabilities. This includes particular attention to the needs of low vision and cognitive accessibility.
  3. Be flexible enough to support the needs of people with disabilities and keep up with emerging technologies. The information structure allows guidance to be added or removed.
  4. Be accessible and conform to the Guidelines.Note: This design principle will move to the Requirements section once the Conformance section is completed and we determine a specific measurement of compliance..
  5. Be written in plain language, as easy as possible to understand. We need a definition of plain language that includes the easy of translation. Ideally, it will be a broadly accepted definition internationally.

The creation process for the guidelines should:

  1. Actively recruit a diverse range of people with disabilities to recognize the importance of their contributions to accessibility standards and solutions. Review and monitor whether people are included. Continually evaluate inclusive features of available tooling and procedures.
  2. Facilitate global participation and feedback.
  3. Be data-informed and evidence-based, recognizing that research may be limited or have small sample sizes. Research results for large groups of people with disabilities should not override the needs of smaller groups. When in doubt, see Design Principle 1. The intent is to make informed decisions wherever possible. For example, new Methods submitted by the public could require user research test results.
  4. [new] Be written so the Guideline content is used in adaptable and customizable ways. For example, Silver content is available to be extracted by users to adapt to their needs.
  5. [new]Improve the ability to support automated testing where appropriate and provide a procedure for repeatable tests when manual testing is appropriate.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree 11
I can live with them 4
Strong disagreement. Explain in comments.

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

Details

Responder Design PrinciplesComments
Wilco Fiers Agree
Jake Abma Agree
Marc Johlic I can live with them DP-2 I still feel weird about calling out two specific disability types: Low Vision and Cognitive. It feels like this is being done to placate (or acknowledge) that internally that we didn't get as much done as we wanted to for those two groups in 2.1. But what does that mean to the person outside of AG WG? The person brand new to accessibility? Someone looking at this 3 years from now. The person who has a disability outside of these two groups? The question will be "Why are these two groups called out specifically for 'particular attention'??"

Or maybe I'm completely missing the reason that these two are being called out specifically (wouldn't be the first time).

I can live with it, but it just feels odd - like we're calling attention to the previous group struggles that we all should be aware of by now and know how to properly act on going forward.
Michael Cooper I can live with them The wording of 5 and 8 are messy. I can live with the principles but need crisper wording.
Bruce Bailey Agree
Kim Dirks Agree
Charles Adams Agree
Laura Carlson I can live with them
Michael Gower I can live with them Trivial typos (issue in square brackets)
Be accessible and conform to the Guidelines[.]Note: This design principle will move to the Requirements section once the 4...Conformance section is completed and we determine a specific measurement of compliance.[.]
Be accessible and conform to the Guidelines. Note: This design principle will move to the Requirements section once the Conformance section is completed and we determine a specific measurement of compliance.

5...We need a definition of plain language that includes [the easy] of translation.
We need a definition of plain language that includes ease of translation.

6... Actively recruit a diverse range of people with disabilities [to recognize] the importance of their contributions to accessibility standards and solutions.

...in recognition of...

9. Be written so the Guideline content is [used] in adaptable...
...usable...

Comment
8 "...Research results for large groups of people with disabilities should not override the needs of smaller groups..."
It's unclear exactly what this means. Is this in regard to conflicting technical implementations? Or to deciding where to focus effort to solve an a11y challenge?
Alastair Campbell Agree Typo in principle 5, should be "ease": "the easy of translation".

Marc - they are called out because they don't tend to fit the pass/fail statement model, which is what this is changing.
Justine Pascalides Agree
Brooks Newton Agree
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Agree
John Kirkwood Agree
David MacDonald Several Sections are not in this survey. Here are general comments:

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
"People with disabilities can face problems using online content and applications. Disabilities can be permanent, temporary, or situational limitations."

I think the phrase "situational limitations" is ambiguous. I don't think we want to write guidelines for people who are disadvantaged because say, there is a lot of sunlight outdoors and its washing out the screen, who otherwise have 20/20 vision. I agree out guidance can help them but I think if we mean "episodic disabilities" then I think we should maybe say that. Or perhaps something like this.
"Disabilities can be permanent, temporary, or an interaction between a physical limitation and a situation."

https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Situational_Limitations_References
It appears that references to situational seem to be almost exclusive ly referring to people who don't have disabilities, but have a situation that benefits from the accommodation (that was initially intended for pwd)
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Jeanne F Spellman Agree

2. Requirements

3.1 Multiple ways to measure

All Silver guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. In addition to the current true/false success criteria, other ways of measuring (for example, rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) are available where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included.

3.2 Flexible maintenance and extensibility

Create a maintenance and extensibility model for guidelines that can better meet the needs of people with disabilities using emerging technologies and interactions. The process of developing the guidance includes experts in the technology.

3.3 Multiple ways to display

Make the guidelines available in different accessible and usable ways or formats so the guidance can be customized by and for different audiences.

3.4 Technology Neutral

Core guidelines are user-centric. Methods are technology-centric. The core guidelines are worded to apply across varied technologies and avoid being technology-specific. The intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to apply the core guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't yet exist. Technical details are discoverable in the Methods but are not required to understand guidelines.

3.5 Readability/Usability

The core guidelines are understandable by a non-technical audience. Text and presentation are usable and understandable through the use of plain language, structure, and design.

3.6 Regulatory Environment

The Guidelines provide broad support, including

  • Structure, methodology, and content that facilitates adoption into law, regulation, or policy, and
  • clear intent and transparency as to purpose and goals, to assist when there are questions or controversy.

3.7 Motivation

The Guidelines motivate organizations to go beyond minimal accessibility requirements by providing a scoring system that rewards organizations which demonstrate a greater effort to improve accessibility.

3.8 Scope

The guidelines provide guidance for people and organizations that produce digital assets and technology of varying size and complexity. Our intent is to provide guidance for a diverse group of stakeholders including content creators, browsers, authoring tools, assistive technologies, and more.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree 9
I can live with them 6
Strong disagreement. Explain in comments.

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

Details

Responder RequirementsComments
Wilco Fiers I can live with them The feedback I've provided to a previous draft of this proposal haven't been answered:
ttps://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/created_by/WilcoFiers

Just on principle, I think it's bad form that the Silver TF is proposing updates without answering feedback that was provided. Github was one of the channels through which feedback was accepted. Even if they had missed it, Detlev had reminded the Taskforce of these issues via e-mail a several months ago.

While I don't see inherent flaws with the proposal, I think some questions that should have been answered aren't. Not the least of which is; Do any of these changes actually require a complete rewrite? And if we do rewrite, how do we avoid the grosley underestimating the work like we saw in WCAG 2, which caused it to be delayed for 7 years?
Jake Abma Agree The requirements are pretty flexible in nature, like "other ways, "where appropriate", "Better meet", "provide broad support"etc.
There are many scenarios I can think of to stretch these words, in general I think requirements may be more restrictive.

Another small issues is "The core guidelines are understandable by a non-technical audience." It depends on what the understanding / definition is for non-technical audience, but in general I do not think they will understand lots of guidelines without a general understanding of techniques.

Marc Johlic Agree
Michael Cooper I can live with them The wording of Technology Neutral is messy but I can live with the basic premise it outlines. In particular, I wonder if we're at at a stage to bake "guidelines" and "methods" into the requirements level, I would have thought not yet, so would like to generalize and simplify the wording of that requirement.
Bruce Bailey Agree
Kim Dirks Agree
Charles Adams Agree
Laura Carlson For 3.1 Multiple ways to measure, "where appropriate" seems wishy-washy. Needs to be defined or there will be lots of disagreements. How is "where appropriate" measured? Requirements that are wishy-washy are not requirements at all. They are judgment calls, subjective to personal opinion.

Suggest moving the second sentence of 3.1 from the requirements section to principles section.
Michael Gower I can live with them "3.3. Multiple ways to display" seems overly prescriptive. Why 'display'? Why not 'present'?
Alastair Campbell I can live with them Re-reading again, I think there are two potential gaps.

1. Methodology.

With a task-based approach and multiple ways of measuring things, the complexity of how you test will increase. Overall it may be easier to do than WCAG 2.x, but knowing how to do it will include more variety, therefore more support will needed.

Where WCAG 2.0 has WCAG-EM (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/), I think Silver will need to build that in. I don't think that can happen on a per-guideline basis, there needs to be guidance on when to apply what.

Under 1.2.2 or the design principles, I'd like to see something like: "Provide support in how to apply conformance across a variety of organisations.".

2. Setting responsibility

Another aspect implicit in WCAG 2.x is the setting of responsibility. Although "accessibility supported" is difficult to work out, it is a mechanism for saying what the author (vs user agent) is responsible for. Given the increase in scope, there needs to something per-guideline that says what the minumum is per conformance level.

Perhaps under 1.2.2's last point: "Authors are not responsible for interoperability problems beyond a reasonable effort.", add something to say that Silver will need to set what the author *is* responsible for.
Justine Pascalides Agree
Brooks Newton Agree
Rachael Bradley Montgomery I can live with them
John Kirkwood Agree
David MacDonald
Andrew Kirkpatrick I can live with them "avoid being technology-specific" needs adjustment to make technology independence a requirement.
Jeanne F Spellman Agree

More details on responses

  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 16, April 2019 at 15:47 (UTC)
  • Michael Gower: last responded on 22, April 2019 at 21:20 (UTC)
  • Alastair Campbell: last responded on 23, April 2019 at 09:05 (UTC)
  • Justine Pascalides: last responded on 23, April 2019 at 12:33 (UTC)
  • Brooks Newton: last responded on 23, April 2019 at 14:12 (UTC)
  • Rachael Bradley Montgomery: last responded on 23, April 2019 at 15:09 (UTC)
  • John Kirkwood: last responded on 23, April 2019 at 15:35 (UTC)
  • David MacDonald: last responded on 23, April 2019 at 15:50 (UTC)
  • Andrew Kirkpatrick: last responded on 23, April 2019 at 15:51 (UTC)
  • Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 24, April 2019 at 13:41 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Gregg Vanderheiden
  2. Chris Wilson
  3. Chaals Nevile
  4. Philippe Le Hegaret
  5. Lisa Seeman-Horwitz
  6. Janina Sajka
  7. Shawn Lawton Henry
  8. Katie Haritos-Shea
  9. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  10. Chus Garcia
  11. Steve Faulkner
  12. Patrick Lauke
  13. Markku Hakkinen
  14. Gez Lemon
  15. Makoto Ueki
  16. Peter Korn
  17. Preety Kumar
  18. Stefan Schnabel
  19. Romain Deltour
  20. Chris Blouch
  21. Wilhelm Joys Andersen
  22. John Foliot
  23. James Craig
  24. Kimberly Patch
  25. Glenda Sims
  26. Ian Pouncey
  27. Léonie Watson
  28. David Sloan
  29. Mary Jo Mueller
  30. Detlev Fischer
  31. Michael Elledge
  32. Reinaldo Ferraz
  33. Fridolin Wild
  34. Shilpi Kapoor
  35. Matt Garrish
  36. Mike Gifford
  37. Loïc Martínez Normand
  38. Mike Pluke
  39. Charles Hall
  40. Vivienne Conway
  41. Chris Loiselle
  42. Tzviya Siegman
  43. Jan McSorley
  44. Sailesh Panchang
  45. Cristina Mussinelli
  46. Jonathan Avila
  47. Anthony Fernando
  48. John Rochford
  49. Sarah Horton
  50. Sujasree Kurapati
  51. Jatin Vaishnav
  52. Sam Ogami
  53. Chaohai Ding
  54. E.A. Draffan
  55. Paul Bohman
  56. JaEun Jemma Ku
  57. 骅 杨
  58. Avneesh Singh
  59. Mitchell Evan
  60. Qing An
  61. Renaldo Bernard
  62. biao liu
  63. Scott McCormack
  64. Denis Boudreau
  65. Shawn Lauriat
  66. Francis Storr
  67. Rick Johnson
  68. Kris Anne Kinney
  69. Levon Spradlin
  70. Shari Butler
  71. Gian Wild
  72. David Swallow
  73. Aparna Pasi
  74. Gregorio Pellegrino
  75. Melanie Philipp
  76. Amanda Mace
  77. Andreas Savva
  78. Ian Smith
  79. Tobias Christian Jensen
  80. Nicole Windmann
  81. Abi James
  82. Oliver Keim
  83. Gundula Niemann
  84. Ruoxi Ran
  85. Richard Boardman
  86. Wendy Reid
  87. Jennifer Chadwick
  88. Aaron Chu
  89. Muhammad Saleem
  90. Amani Ali
  91. Trevor Bostic
  92. Betsy Furler
  93. Kathy Eng
  94. Cybele Sack
  95. Jennifer Delisi
  96. Rafal Charlampowicz
  97. Robin Lazrus
  98. Shrirang Sahasrabudhe
  99. Christos Petrou
  100. Arthur Soroken
  101. Daniel Bjorge
  102. Kai Recke
  103. David Fazio
  104. Daniel Montalvo
  105. Jennifer Korth
  106. Mario Chacón-Rivas
  107. Andrew Somers
  108. Michael Gilbert
  109. Caryn Pagel
  110. Achraf Othman
  111. Fernanda Bonnin
  112. Jared Batterman
  113. Raja Kushalnagar
  114. Jan Williams
  115. Todd Libby
  116. Isabel Holdsworth
  117. Sheri Byrne-Haber
  118. Sukriti Chadha
  119. Julia Chen
  120. Shuxin Ouyang
  121. Christopher Weidner
  122. mancang sun
  123. David Middleton
  124. Scott Rubenstein
  125. Kyle Lachance
  126. Ela Gorla
  127. Jennifer Strickland
  128. Aditya Bajaj
  129. Ben Tillyer
  130. Charu Pandhi
  131. Poornima Badhan Subramanian
  132. Rain Breaw Michaels
  133. Albert Kim
  134. Kun Zhang
  135. Santina Croniser
  136. Jaunita George
  137. Bhoomika Bhagchandani
  138. Melissa Douros
  139. Regina Sanchez
  140. Shawn Thompson
  141. Jeff Bernier
  142. Thomas Brunet
  143. Tolu Adegbite
  144. Kenny Dunsin
  145. Ronny Hendriks
  146. Thomas Murray
  147. Andrew Nevins
  148. Breixo Pastoriza Barcia
  149. Sam Waller
  150. Olivia Hogan-Stark
  151. Rashmi Katakwar
  152. Hedda Peters
  153. Julie Rawe
  154. Laura Miller
  155. Will Creedle
  156. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  157. Marie Bergeron
  158. Meenakshi Das
  159. Perrin Anto
  160. Jonathan Buonaspina
  161. Sally Britnell
  162. Vicki-Jane Appleton
  163. Stephanie Louraine
  164. Sarah Wood
  165. Jo Otterbein
  166. Jan Jaap de Groot
  167. Sara Temby
  168. Rebecca Monteleone
  169. Anna Wheler
  170. Ian Kersey
  171. Peter Bossley
  172. Anastasia Lanz
  173. Michael Keane
  174. Andrew Barakat
  175. Devanshu Chandra
  176. Helen Zhou
  177. Jonathan Bell
  178. Bryan Trogdon
  179. Mary Ann (MJ) Jawili
  180. Stephen James
  181. Jay Mullen
  182. Thorsten Katzmann
  183. Tony Holland
  184. Lisa Yoder
  185. Kent Boucher
  186. Abbey Davis
  187. Steven Bassett
  188. Phil Day
  189. Julia Kim
  190. Michelle Lana
  191. David Williams
  192. Mikayla Thompson
  193. Mackenzie Banks
  194. Ilknur Eren
  195. Catherine Droege
  196. Jigna Islaniya
  197. Mahesh Bharadava
  198. Sunil Jolapara
  199. Tammy Salomon
  200. James Edwards
  201. Eric Hind
  202. Sazzad Mahamud
  203. Katy Brickley
  204. Kimberly Sarabia
  205. Corey Hinshaw
  206. John Sherrod
  207. Daniel Harper-Wain
  208. Kiara Stewart
  209. Suji Sreerama
  210. Lori Oakley
  211. David Middleton
  212. Alyssa Priddy
  213. Young Choi
  214. Julie Romanowski

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