W3C

Results of Questionnaire Update accessibility supported placeholder

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2022-06-02 to 2022-06-07.

13 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Background
  2. Updating Placeholder Text

1. Background

We would like to begin working on approaches to addressing assistive technology and user agents. The editor's draft includes an example in Alt text and Captions but additional examples are needed in order to determine the best way to approach this.

Please list all questions, concerns, and thoughts you would like the subgroup to consider when crafting exploratory content. This list will help them get started and also be incorporated into a draft editor's note.

Details

Responder
John Foliot
Mary Jo Mueller Since there are existing standards (508 & EN 301 549) that have separate authoring tool vs. authored content requirements, I think it might be preferable to address authoring tool requirements in separate, easily identifiable (and reported-on) outcomes in the main WCAG 3 document such as: 1) Provides content authors a method to specify text alternatives for non-text content.
2) Provides a method to assist content authors in identifying and correcting non-text content that has no alternative text.
3) When converting content from one technology to another, alternative text is preserved.

It would be interesting to explore whether the same alternative text is equally useful in cognitive categories vs. visual categories or if different alternative text is more useful. I can imagine that there could be variations on what information should be conveyed.

The existing wording of the outcome isn't quite clear to me. I also think that "and / or" unnecessarily complicates the readability. Suggested change to the outcome text: "Provides text alternatives for non-text content that is conveyed to users through user agents and assistive technologies. This allows users who are unable to perceive or understand the non-text content to determine its meaning."

OUTCOMES PAGE COMMENTS: Should explore if the outcomes page should more clearly separate the categories of "Content methods" and "Authoring tool methods" or "Methods for content" and "Methods for authoring tools".

Not everyone jumping to this page is familiar with ATAG and that it is NOT another Web technology. Categorizing could help content authors ignore the ATAG and authoring tool developers to quickly focus on what they need to do.

A bit off-topic from the survey, but it seems odd to me that the outcome in the main WCAG 3 document is worded differently than the outcome on the details and methods page. These should be identical which will reduce maintenance as the verbiage is tweaked over time.

Authoring Tool METHOD - introduction tab: The first heading doesn't match the content. Seems this is the "applicability" not the "platform".
Laura Carlson
Shawn Lauriat
David MacDonald
Jonathan Avila This state "Evaluation is done on one or more complete views or processes, and conformance is determined on the basis of one or more complete views or processes." could be understood that you can have conformance on just a process and not a view. Is that worded as intended?
Makoto Ueki We should present easier navigation for both content authors and UA/AT developers so that they can find what to do easily.
Bruce Bailey Just as point of reference, with the Revised 508 Standards, requirements *for* AT was controversial. Here is where AT is specifically mentioned (two Exceptions, one requirement):
https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#E207.1
https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#E207.2
https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#503.3
Todd Libby
Alastair Campbell This is really key to assigning responsibility. I.e. is this something the author is responsible for, the user-agent, or something else?

What happens when a guideline is partially supported by user-agents? E.g. focus-styles that are good in some user-agents in some cases, but not in others?
What if some browsers include an option that solves the problem, but some do not? Can we set some methods required by the author, but not if they rely on user-agents to fulfil some?

What if the user-agent feature is hidden or not well known, who's problem is that to solve?

Our previous stance has been based on our focus on author responsibility, but what if we base it on coverage of requirements instead?
Ian Kersey
Gregg Vanderheiden Traditionally AT have not been required to follow user agent guidelines since they are not usually a complete user agent but an AUX user agent. We might (here or in WCAG3) think about recommendations for AT as well.
- they do need to be used by people with other disabilities as well -- but it is not always possible to do this
- we have sometimes felt we were creating a rule for content authors to repair the situation where a feature could have been (and should have been?) in the AT that would have made the SC not needed. We talked about "Pushing AT". I'm not sure about making requirements for AT (maybe - if we are *very* careful and consult them -- but making recommendations is something we might look for a place for.
Jeanne F Spellman

2. Updating Placeholder Text

Please review the draft placeholder text in Section 6.4 Accessibility supported ways of using technology.

Reminder that you have to use the "Reveal placeholder & exploratory sections" button at the top of the table of contents to view placeholder content

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I approve updating the placeholder text in the editor's draft. 9
I approve updating the placeholder text in the editor's draft with the following adjustments. 2
Something else (see comments) 1

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Updating Placeholder Text
John Foliot I approve updating the placeholder text in the editor's draft.
Mary Jo Mueller I approve updating the placeholder text in the editor's draft. Some alternatives to consider, though I won't block if not accepted: "Placeholder. We will address this topic." or "Placeholder. We will address this topic in a future draft."
Laura Carlson I approve updating the placeholder text in the editor's draft.
Shawn Lauriat I approve updating the placeholder text in the editor's draft.
David MacDonald I approve updating the placeholder text in the editor's draft. I see placeholder text text

6.4 Accessibility-supported ways of using technologies
Section status: Placeholder. We will be addressing this topic.

I don't see any content in the section yet... I approve in general of the section being included in WCAG 3.0

Jonathan Avila Something else (see comments) I don't think it provides much value to just have a one line heading and 1 sentence saying it will be updated later. It's very confusing.
Makoto Ueki I approve updating the placeholder text in the editor's draft.
Bruce Bailey I approve updating the placeholder text in the editor's draft with the following adjustments. I am not a fan of 6.4 item showing in ToC but then following link (from ToC) not also revealing/expanding place holder section.

Might Placeholder/Exploratory items in ToC *also* be hidden by button at the top of the ToC?

The reveal button is very easy to miss, even with these instructions. Sorry to be so "get off my lawn" old and cranky.
Todd Libby I approve updating the placeholder text in the editor's draft.
Alastair Campbell
Ian Kersey I approve updating the placeholder text in the editor's draft.
Gregg Vanderheiden I approve updating the placeholder text in the editor's draft with the following adjustments. something like Placeholder: We will be exploring this topic in future drafts. We solicit {input from the field} would be better
Jeanne F Spellman I approve updating the placeholder text in the editor's draft. Post meeting edit: There was information about Accessibility Supported in the Silver Research. It was also discussed at the Design Sprint. I particularly remember that Makoto had a use case around Japanese screenreaders. I suggest the group invite him to comment on it. I can help find the links to the appropriate research.

More details on responses

  • John Foliot: last responded on 2, June 2022 at 19:22 (UTC)
  • Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 2, June 2022 at 22:34 (UTC)
  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 3, June 2022 at 16:48 (UTC)
  • Shawn Lauriat: last responded on 3, June 2022 at 18:21 (UTC)
  • David MacDonald: last responded on 4, June 2022 at 05:36 (UTC)
  • Jonathan Avila: last responded on 6, June 2022 at 13:59 (UTC)
  • Makoto Ueki: last responded on 6, June 2022 at 23:40 (UTC)
  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 7, June 2022 at 12:54 (UTC)
  • Todd Libby: last responded on 7, June 2022 at 12:58 (UTC)
  • Alastair Campbell: last responded on 7, June 2022 at 15:07 (UTC)
  • Ian Kersey: last responded on 7, June 2022 at 15:13 (UTC)
  • Gregg Vanderheiden: last responded on 7, June 2022 at 15:31 (UTC)
  • Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 7, June 2022 at 15:31 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Chris Wilson
  2. Lisa Seeman-Horwitz
  3. Janina Sajka
  4. Shawn Lawton Henry
  5. Katie Haritos-Shea
  6. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  7. Chus Garcia
  8. Steve Faulkner
  9. Patrick Lauke
  10. Gez Lemon
  11. Peter Korn
  12. Preety Kumar
  13. Georgios Grigoriadis
  14. Stefan Schnabel
  15. Romain Deltour
  16. Chris Blouch
  17. Jedi Lin
  18. Wilco Fiers
  19. Kimberly Patch
  20. Glenda Sims
  21. Ian Pouncey
  22. Léonie Watson
  23. David Sloan
  24. John Kirkwood
  25. Detlev Fischer
  26. Reinaldo Ferraz
  27. Matt Garrish
  28. Mike Gifford
  29. Loïc Martínez Normand
  30. Mike Pluke
  31. Justine Pascalides
  32. Chris Loiselle
  33. Tzviya Siegman
  34. Jan McSorley
  35. Sailesh Panchang
  36. Cristina Mussinelli
  37. John Rochford
  38. Sarah Horton
  39. Sujasree Kurapati
  40. Jatin Vaishnav
  41. Sam Ogami
  42. Kevin White
  43. E.A. Draffan
  44. Paul Bohman
  45. JaEun Jemma Ku
  46. 骅 杨
  47. Victoria Clark
  48. Avneesh Singh
  49. Mitchell Evan
  50. Michael Gower
  51. biao liu
  52. Scott McCormack
  53. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  54. Francis Storr
  55. Rick Johnson
  56. David Swallow
  57. Aparna Pasi
  58. Gregorio Pellegrino
  59. Melanie Philipp
  60. Jake Abma
  61. Nicole Windmann
  62. Oliver Keim
  63. Gundula Niemann
  64. Ruoxi Ran
  65. Wendy Reid
  66. Scott O'Hara
  67. Charles Adams
  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. Jared Batterman
  90. Raja Kushalnagar
  91. Jan Williams
  92. Isabel Holdsworth
  93. Julia Chen
  94. Marcos Franco Murillo
  95. Yutaka Suzuki
  96. Azlan Cuttilan
  97. Jennifer Strickland
  98. Joe Humbert
  99. Ben Tillyer
  100. Charu Pandhi
  101. Poornima Badhan Subramanian
  102. Alain Vagner
  103. Roberto Scano
  104. Rain Breaw Michaels
  105. Kun Zhang
  106. Jaunita George
  107. Regina Sanchez
  108. Shawn Thompson
  109. Thomas Brunet
  110. Kenny Dunsin
  111. Jen Goulden
  112. Mike Beganyi
  113. Ronny Hendriks
  114. Olivia Hogan-Stark
  115. Rashmi Katakwar
  116. Julie Rawe
  117. Duff Johnson
  118. Laura Miller
  119. Will Creedle
  120. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  121. Marie Csanady
  122. Meenakshi Das
  123. Perrin Anto
  124. Rachele DiTullio
  125. Jan Jaap de Groot
  126. Rebecca Monteleone
  127. Peter Bossley
  128. Anastasia Lanz
  129. Michael Keane
  130. Chiara De Martin
  131. Giacomo Petri
  132. Andrew Barakat
  133. Devanshu Chandra
  134. Xiao (Helen) Zhou
  135. Joe Lamyman
  136. Bryan Trogdon
  137. Mary Ann (MJ) Jawili
  138. 禹佳 陶
  139. 锦澄 王
  140. Stephen James
  141. Jay Mullen
  142. Thorsten Katzmann
  143. Tony Holland
  144. Kent Boucher
  145. Abbey Davis
  146. Phil Day
  147. Julia Kim
  148. Michelle Lana
  149. David Williams
  150. Mikayla Thompson
  151. Catherine Droege
  152. James Edwards
  153. Eric Hind
  154. Quintin Balsdon
  155. Mario Batušić
  156. David Cox
  157. Sazzad Mahamud
  158. Katy Brickley
  159. Kimberly Sarabia
  160. Corey Hinshaw
  161. Ashley Firth
  162. Daniel Harper-Wain
  163. Kiara Stewart
  164. DJ Chase
  165. Suji Sreerama
  166. Lori Oakley
  167. David Middleton
  168. Alyssa Priddy
  169. Young Choi
  170. Nichole Bui
  171. Julie Romanowski
  172. Eloisa Guerrero
  173. George Kuan
  174. YAPING LIN
  175. Justin Wilson
  176. Leonard Beasley
  177. Tiffany Burtin
  178. Shane Dittmar
  179. Nayan Padrai
  180. Niamh Kelly
  181. Matt Argomaniz Matthew Argomaniz
  182. Frankie Wolf
  183. Kimberly McGee
  184. Ahson Rana
  185. Carolina Crespo
  186. humor927 humor927
  187. Samantha McDaniel
  188. Matthäus Rojek
  189. Phong Tony Le
  190. Bram Janssens
  191. Graham Ritchie
  192. Aleksandar Cindrikj
  193. Jeroen Hulscher
  194. Alina Vayntrub
  195. Marco Sabidussi
  196. John Toles
  197. Jeanne Erickson Cooley
  198. Theo Hale
  199. Gert-Jan Vercauteren
  200. Karla Rubiano
  201. Aashutosh K
  202. Hidde de Vries
  203. Julian Kittelson-Aldred
  204. Roland Buss
  205. Aditya Surendranath
  206. Avon Kuo
  207. Elizabeth Patrick
  208. Tj Squires
  209. Nat Tarnoff
  210. Illai Zeevi
  211. Filippo Zorzi
  212. Gleidson Ramos
  213. Mike Pedersen
  214. Rachael Yomtoob
  215. Oliver Habersetzer
  216. Irfan Mukhtar
  217. Sage Keriazes

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