w3c/wbs-design
or
by mail to sysreq
.
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:
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:
The creation process for the guidelines should:
Choice | All 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)
Responder | Design Principles | Comments |
---|---|---|
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 |
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.
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.
Make the guidelines available in different accessible and usable ways or formats so the guidance can be customized by and for different audiences.
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.
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.
The Guidelines provide broad support, including
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.
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.
Choice | All 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)
Responder | Requirements | Comments |
---|---|---|
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 |
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
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
w3c/wbs-design
or
by mail to sysreq
.