W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

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:

Background
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

Choice	All responders
Choice	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.