W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire WCAG 3.0 Explainer for August Heartbeat Publication

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2021-06-17 to 2021-06-22.

13 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Review additional goal of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion"
  2. Do you approve of including the WCAG 3.0 Explainer in the August Heartbeat Release?

1. Review additional goal of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion"

A suggestion was made to include an additional goal of "Diversity, Equity And Inclusion" into the Explainer. The goals can be viewed at the following link:

Explainer for W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0

Do you:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Approve of the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal 1
Approve of the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal, with modifications (please note in comments) 2
Something Else (please note in comments) 6
Do not include the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal 4

Details

Responder Review additional goal of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion"
Wilco Fiers Something Else (please note in comments) I'm not clear on what is being proposed. I'd like to see the actual proposal, not just the heading.
Stefan Schnabel Something Else (please note in comments) Accessibility is the OUTCOME/RESULT/TECHNICAL REALIZATION of the goal Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
A master W3C document "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and what W3C does for it by having the following goals" would be a reference to be mentioned instead.
Gundula Niemann Do not include the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal Diversity, Equity, Inclusion is a far wider goal than Accessibility, therefor a full Accessibility does contribute, but not reach Diversity, Equity, Inclusion. Therefore I object.
Laura Carlson Something Else (please note in comments) I'm not clear on what is being proposed. I'd like to see the actual proposal, not just the heading.
David MacDonald Something Else (please note in comments) > Set goals for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion. Include a goal for more recruiting of younger accessibility experts.

I would like to be careful that diversity takes into account "ageism" which is a prejudice against people who are older. One silver member approached me outside a face to face meeting and said "you're kind of old, maybe you should leave accessibility standards to younger people."

"recruiting younger accessibility experts" triggers that conversation in my mind a bit.

There are strengths and weakness in every age group, so we need them all.
Do we need to call out specific groups? There are probably a dozen other groups we could include in the document once we start down the road of naming groups we want adequately represented.
Jeanne F Spellman Do not include the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal While I think this is a really important goal, as it is current phrased it seems like window-dressing. Because real diversity, equity and inclusion would require substantial changes in both the way we recruit and the culture and tooling that we work in, I don't think we should add this goal. I recommend that we form a group to study the issue and recommend specific changes that we could incorporate into the WCAG3 Requirements.
Makoto Ueki Something Else (please note in comments) Maybe I missed the background on "Include a goal for more recruiting of younger accessibility experts." But I don't think age matters.
Rain Breaw Michaels Approve of the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal
Charles Adams Do not include the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal
Sarah Horton Do not include the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal The goal is not well defined, and it's difficult to spot what it's responding to in the design principles.

That said, accessibility guidelines creation would absolutely benefit from more “collective wisdom,” with more engagement and participation and diverse perspectives. Diversity, equity, and inclusion goals would help make that happen. Perhaps a small group could work in defining and articulating the goal more clearly?
Jennifer Strickland Approve of the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal, with modifications (please note in comments) Actively recruit a diverse range of people with disabilities in recognition of 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. By diverse, we mean a range of lived experiences of disabilities, socio-economics (occupational status, educational attainment, poverty), gender, ethnicity, nations of residence and origin, language, and other historically marginalized perspectives.

Facilitate global participation and feedback, by meeting people where they are, through a range of feedback vehicles.

Set goals for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Include a goal for more recruiting of younger accessibility experts.
Bruce Bailey Approve of the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal, with modifications (please note in comments) Editorial suggestion: Second and third bullet do NOT include a rationalization/explanation. It struct me as odd that the first bullet did. I think:
> Actively recruit a diverse range of people with disabilities in recognition of 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.

Could/should just be:
> Actively recruit a diverse range of people with disabilities. Review and monitor whether people are included. Continually evaluate inclusive features of available tooling and procedures.
Michael Gower Something Else (please note in comments) "Continually evaluate inclusive features of available tooling and procedures."
That seems unrealistic. May want to qualify it, so things aren't set up to fail.

"Set goals for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion. Include a goal for more recruiting of younger accessibility experts"
This gave me pause.
Why younger? Why not "...a broader range of ages"? We don't really have many older participants either, especially given the statistical likelihood they will have more interesting combinations of considerations.
Why experts? Do you mean professionals? I think it's not bad to distinguish between users and people working in the field, and I guess we do use the term "invited expert", so probably okay

2. Do you approve of including the WCAG 3.0 Explainer in the August Heartbeat Release?

Do you:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer 4
Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer with recommended alterations (please note those in comments) 3
Something else 4

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

Details

Responder Do you approve of including the WCAG 3.0 Explainer in the August Heartbeat Release?Comments
Wilco Fiers Something else I think the explainer is far too long, and goes into too much detail. I'd rather see a trimmed down version of this document. The best explainers, in my opinion, are ones that in 2 minutes of reading give a rough idea of what to expect from the larger document. The explainer proposed for WCAG 3 almost seems more like background information, then an actual explainer.

I would like to either see this document trimmed down substantially, or have it renamed and a separate, much shorter explainer be created.
Stefan Schnabel Something else I don't approve until 2. has been clarified
Gundula Niemann
Laura Carlson Something else After #2 has been decided.
David MacDonald Consider removing this until we've had a "detailed discussion"

> "Remove “accessibility supported” as an author responsibility, and help developers of authoring tools, browsers, and assistive technologies learn the behaviors that users expect of their products. Note: This requires more detailed discussion in AGWG. It does not yet have consensus. "

I think working draft content is where we go to the public with content that we are reasonably sure we want to go forward with as a group, not to have the public arbitrate lack of consensus.

> Evaluating processes requires counting critical errors that occur within the process and associated views .

I think we need a thorough discussion about "counting" before going public with it. How about the following:

> Evaluating processes requires <add>documenting</add> critical errors that occur within the process and associated views .


Jeanne F Spellman Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer with recommended alterations (please note those in comments) We also proposed adding a goal that the Conformance be easier to test than we currently have in WCAG2. I don't think it is realistic. I don't want to add that goal.
Makoto Ueki Something else > 3.3 Goals for Conformance
> Remove “accessibility supported” as an author responsibility, and help developers of authoring tools, browsers, and assistive technologies learn the behaviors that users expect of their products.

If we will remove it, we must secure that we will provide the guidance for developers of authoring tools, browsers, and assistive technologies on how they can support HTML, JavaScript and any other technologies covered by WCAG 3. Otherwise they don't know what to do and how to do.

I'd say "Techniques for WCAG 2.0" was a set of "JAWS-based" sufficient techniques. For instance, we have very popular Japanese screen reader in Japan and it lacks support for HTML/WAI-ARIA when compared to JAWS. That was why we needed the concept of "accessibility-supported" when we developed WCAG 2.0.

There were many sufficient techniques which didn't work with the Japanese screen readers. In Japan, we had to determine if each technique was "accessibility- supported" or not. So we created a set of test files based on "Techniques for WCAG 2.0" and tested them with various Japanese user agents"
Rain Breaw Michaels Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer
Charles Adams Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer
Sarah Horton Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer with recommended alterations (please note those in comments) The explainer is helpful and should be included, but it would be more effective with significant editing and restructuring.
Jennifer Strickland Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer
Bruce Bailey Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer
Michael Gower Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer with recommended alterations (please note those in comments) "Think about what is the person trying to do." should be "Think about what the person is trying to do."

It's confusing to have "5.1 Structure of these guidelines
This section is non-normative." when that is not included in other sections. I assume the whole Explainer is non-normative, so suggest these be removed

"measureability" Lose the second "e"

Accessibility supported has a separate issue to address, I think, right?

More details on responses

  • Wilco Fiers: last responded on 21, June 2021 at 09:32 (UTC)
  • Stefan Schnabel: last responded on 21, June 2021 at 12:11 (UTC)
  • Gundula Niemann: last responded on 21, June 2021 at 12:12 (UTC)
  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 21, June 2021 at 18:54 (UTC)
  • David MacDonald: last responded on 21, June 2021 at 20:38 (UTC)
  • Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 21, June 2021 at 21:17 (UTC)
  • Makoto Ueki: last responded on 22, June 2021 at 09:46 (UTC)
  • Rain Breaw Michaels: last responded on 22, June 2021 at 13:28 (UTC)
  • Charles Adams: last responded on 22, June 2021 at 13:33 (UTC)
  • Sarah Horton: last responded on 22, June 2021 at 14:08 (UTC)
  • Jennifer Strickland: last responded on 22, June 2021 at 14:09 (UTC)
  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 22, June 2021 at 14:46 (UTC)
  • Michael Gower: last responded on 22, June 2021 at 15:06 (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. Gez Lemon
  12. Peter Korn
  13. Preety Kumar
  14. Georgios Grigoriadis
  15. Romain Deltour
  16. Chris Blouch
  17. Jedi Lin
  18. Kimberly Patch
  19. Glenda Sims
  20. Ian Pouncey
  21. Alastair Campbell
  22. Léonie Watson
  23. David Sloan
  24. Mary Jo Mueller
  25. Peter Heery
  26. John Kirkwood
  27. Detlev Fischer
  28. Reinaldo Ferraz
  29. Matt Garrish
  30. Mike Gifford
  31. Loïc Martínez Normand
  32. Mike Pluke
  33. Jon Gibbins
  34. Justine Pascalides
  35. Chris Loiselle
  36. Tzviya Siegman
  37. Jan McSorley
  38. Sailesh Panchang
  39. Cristina Mussinelli
  40. Jonathan Avila
  41. John Rochford
  42. Sujasree Kurapati
  43. Jatin Vaishnav
  44. Sam Ogami
  45. Kevin White
  46. E.A. Draffan
  47. Paul Bohman
  48. JaEun Jemma Ku
  49. 骅 杨
  50. Victoria Clark
  51. Avneesh Singh
  52. Mitchell Evan
  53. biao liu
  54. Scott McCormack
  55. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  56. Francis Storr
  57. David Swallow
  58. Aparna Pasi
  59. Gregorio Pellegrino
  60. Melanie Philipp
  61. Amanda Mace
  62. Jake Abma
  63. Nicole Windmann
  64. Oliver Keim
  65. Ruoxi Ran
  66. Wendy Reid
  67. Scott O'Hara
  68. Muhammad Saleem
  69. Amani Ali
  70. Trevor Bostic
  71. Jamie Herrera
  72. Shinya Takami
  73. Karen Herr
  74. Kathy Eng
  75. Cybele Sack
  76. Audrey Maniez
  77. Jennifer Delisi
  78. Arthur Soroken
  79. Daniel Bjorge
  80. Kai Recke
  81. David Fazio
  82. Daniel Montalvo
  83. Mario Chacón-Rivas
  84. Michael Gilbert
  85. Caryn Pagel
  86. Achraf Othman
  87. Helen Burge
  88. Fernanda Bonnin
  89. Christina Adams
  90. Raja Kushalnagar
  91. Jan Williams
  92. Todd Libby
  93. Isabel Holdsworth
  94. Julia Chen
  95. Yutaka Suzuki
  96. Azlan Cuttilan
  97. Joe Humbert
  98. Ben Tillyer
  99. Charu Pandhi
  100. Poornima Badhan Subramanian
  101. Alain Vagner
  102. Roberto Scano
  103. Kun Zhang
  104. Jaunita George
  105. Regina Sanchez
  106. Shawn Thompson
  107. Thomas Brunet
  108. Kenny Dunsin
  109. Jen Goulden
  110. Mike Beganyi
  111. Ronny Hendriks
  112. Korede Olubowale
  113. Rashmi Katakwar
  114. Julie Rawe
  115. Duff Johnson
  116. Laura Miller
  117. Will Creedle
  118. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  119. Marie Csanady
  120. Meenakshi Das
  121. Perrin Anto
  122. Brian Elton
  123. Rachele DiTullio
  124. Jan Jaap de Groot
  125. Rebecca Monteleone
  126. Ian Kersey
  127. Peter Bossley
  128. Michael Keane
  129. Chiara De Martin
  130. Giacomo Petri
  131. Andrew Barakat
  132. Devanshu Chandra
  133. Xiao (Helen) Zhou
  134. Joe Lamyman
  135. Bryan Trogdon
  136. Mary Ann (MJ) Jawili
  137. 禹佳 陶
  138. 锦澄 王
  139. Stephen James
  140. Jay Mullen
  141. Thorsten Katzmann
  142. Tony Holland
  143. Kent Boucher
  144. Phil Day
  145. Julia Kim
  146. Michelle Lana
  147. David Williams
  148. Mikayla Thompson
  149. Catherine Droege
  150. James Edwards
  151. Eric Hind
  152. Quintin Balsdon
  153. Mario Batušić
  154. David Cox
  155. Sazzad Mahamud
  156. Katy Brickley
  157. Kimberly Sarabia
  158. Corey Hinshaw
  159. Ashley Firth
  160. Daniel Harper-Wain
  161. Kiara Stewart
  162. DJ Chase
  163. Suji Sreerama
  164. Fred Edora
  165. Lori Oakley
  166. David Middleton
  167. Alyssa Priddy
  168. Young Choi
  169. Julie Romanowski
  170. Eloisa Guerrero
  171. George Kuan
  172. YAPING LIN
  173. Justin Wilson
  174. Leonard Beasley
  175. Tiffany Burtin
  176. Shane Dittmar
  177. Nayan Padrai
  178. Matt Argomaniz Matthew Argomaniz
  179. Frankie Wolf
  180. Kimberly McGee
  181. Ahson Rana
  182. Carolina Crespo
  183. humor927 humor927
  184. Jackie Fei
  185. Samantha McDaniel
  186. Matthäus Rojek
  187. Phong Tony Le
  188. Bram Janssens
  189. Graham Ritchie
  190. Aleksandar Cindrikj
  191. Jeroen Hulscher
  192. Alina Vayntrub
  193. Marco Sabidussi
  194. John Toles
  195. Jeanne Erickson Cooley
  196. Theo Hale
  197. Paul Adam
  198. Gert-Jan Vercauteren
  199. Karla Rubiano
  200. Aashutosh K
  201. Hidde de Vries
  202. Julian Kittelson-Aldred
  203. Roland Buss
  204. Aditya Surendranath
  205. Elizabeth Patrick
  206. Tj Squires
  207. Nat Tarnoff
  208. Illai Zeevi
  209. Filippo Zorzi
  210. Gleidson Ramos
  211. Mike Pedersen
  212. Rachael Yomtoob
  213. Oliver Habersetzer
  214. Ken Franqueiro
  215. Irfan Mukhtar
  216. Rachel White
  217. Sage Keriazes
  218. Tananda Darling
  219. Nina Krauß
  220. Demelza Feltham
  221. Ragvesh Sharma
  222. Shunguo Yan
  223. Charli Riggle
  224. Nora GOUGANE
  225. Andy Manea
  226. Tim Gravemaker
  227. Roldon Brown
  228. qin guan
  229. Alexandra Yaneva
  230. Carrie Hall
  231. Tanya van Workum
  232. Megan Pletzer
  233. Akash Shukla
  234. Rob Whitaker
  235. Jeremy Katherman
  236. Atya Ratcliff
  237. Nati Elimelech
  238. Noa Nitzan
  239. Jory Cunningham
  240. Imran Ahmed
  241. Ryan Romaine
  242. Casey Smith
  243. Ann Knettler

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.