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. Makoto Ueki
  15. Peter Korn
  16. Preety Kumar
  17. Georgios Grigoriadis
  18. Stefan Schnabel
  19. Romain Deltour
  20. Chris Blouch
  21. John Foliot
  22. Jedi Lin
  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. Chris Loiselle
  40. Tzviya Siegman
  41. Jan McSorley
  42. Sailesh Panchang
  43. Cristina Mussinelli
  44. Jonathan Avila
  45. John Rochford
  46. Sarah Horton
  47. Sujasree Kurapati
  48. Jatin Vaishnav
  49. Sam Ogami
  50. Chaohai Ding
  51. Kevin White
  52. E.A. Draffan
  53. Paul Bohman
  54. JaEun Jemma Ku
  55. 骅 杨
  56. Avneesh Singh
  57. Mitchell Evan
  58. Qing An
  59. Renaldo Bernard
  60. biao liu
  61. Scott McCormack
  62. Denis Boudreau
  63. Shawn Lauriat
  64. Francis Storr
  65. Rick Johnson
  66. Kris Anne Kinney
  67. David Swallow
  68. Aparna Pasi
  69. Gregorio Pellegrino
  70. Melanie Philipp
  71. Amanda Mace
  72. Andreas Savva
  73. Ian Smith
  74. Tobias Christian Jensen
  75. Nicole Windmann
  76. Abi James
  77. Oliver Keim
  78. Gundula Niemann
  79. Ruoxi Ran
  80. Richard Boardman
  81. Wendy Reid
  82. Jennifer Chadwick
  83. Scott O'Hara
  84. Aaron Chu
  85. Muhammad Saleem
  86. Amani Ali
  87. Trevor Bostic
  88. Shinya Takami
  89. Kathy Eng
  90. Cybele Sack
  91. Jennifer Delisi
  92. Shrirang Sahasrabudhe
  93. Arthur Soroken
  94. Daniel Bjorge
  95. Kai Recke
  96. David Fazio
  97. Daniel Montalvo
  98. Mario Chacón-Rivas
  99. Michael Gilbert
  100. Caryn Pagel
  101. Achraf Othman
  102. Fernanda Bonnin
  103. Jared Batterman
  104. Raja Kushalnagar
  105. Jan Williams
  106. Todd Libby
  107. Isabel Holdsworth
  108. Julia Chen
  109. Shuxin Ouyang
  110. Christopher Weidner
  111. mancang sun
  112. David Middleton
  113. Yutaka Suzuki
  114. Scott Rubenstein
  115. Kyle Lachance
  116. Jennifer Strickland
  117. Aditya Bajaj
  118. Ben Tillyer
  119. Charu Pandhi
  120. Poornima Badhan Subramanian
  121. Rain Breaw Michaels
  122. Albert Kim
  123. Kun Zhang
  124. Santina Croniser
  125. Jaunita George
  126. Melissa Douros
  127. Regina Sanchez
  128. Shawn Thompson
  129. Thomas Brunet
  130. Tolu Adegbite
  131. Kenny Dunsin
  132. Ronny Hendriks
  133. Andrew Nevins
  134. Breixo Pastoriza Barcia
  135. Olivia Hogan-Stark
  136. Rashmi Katakwar
  137. Julie Rawe
  138. Laura Miller
  139. Will Creedle
  140. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  141. Marie Csanady
  142. Meenakshi Das
  143. Perrin Anto
  144. Jonathan Buonaspina
  145. Sally Britnell
  146. Stephanie Louraine
  147. Sarah Wood
  148. Jan Jaap de Groot
  149. Rebecca Monteleone
  150. Anna Wheler
  151. Mark Applin
  152. Ian Kersey
  153. Peter Bossley
  154. Anastasia Lanz
  155. Michael Keane
  156. Chiara De Martin
  157. Giacomo Petri
  158. Andrew Barakat
  159. Devanshu Chandra
  160. Helen Zhou
  161. Jonathan Bell
  162. Bryan Trogdon
  163. Mary Ann (MJ) Jawili
  164. Stephen James
  165. Jay Mullen
  166. Thorsten Katzmann
  167. Tony Holland
  168. Kent Boucher
  169. Abbey Davis
  170. Steven Bassett
  171. Phil Day
  172. Julia Kim
  173. Michelle Lana
  174. David Williams
  175. Mikayla Thompson
  176. Mackenzie Banks
  177. Ilknur Eren
  178. Catherine Droege
  179. Jigna Islaniya
  180. Mahesh Bharadava
  181. Sunil Jolapara
  182. Tammy Salomon
  183. James Edwards
  184. Eric Hind
  185. David Cox
  186. Sazzad Mahamud
  187. Katy Brickley
  188. Kimberly Sarabia
  189. Corey Hinshaw
  190. Daniel Harper-Wain
  191. Kiara Stewart
  192. Suji Sreerama
  193. Lori Oakley
  194. David Middleton
  195. Alyssa Priddy
  196. Young Choi
  197. Nichole Bui
  198. Julie Romanowski
  199. Eloisa Guerrero
  200. Daniel Henderson-Ede
  201. George Kuan
  202. YAPING LIN
  203. Justin Wilson
  204. Tiffany Burtin
  205. Shane Dittmar
  206. Brionna Johnson
  207. Niamh Kelly
  208. Matt Argomaniz Matthew Argomaniz
  209. Frankie Wolf
  210. Carolina Crespo
  211. humor927 humor927
  212. Alex Malhao
  213. Emily Jenkins
  214. Samantha McDaniel
  215. Matthäus Rojek
  216. Phong Tony Le

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