W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Charter Proposal

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2022-02-09 to 2022-04-19.

32 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Proposed Approach - Demonstrated Solutions
  2. Comments on Sections
  3. DONE: Chartering Proposal
  4. DONE: Approach to WCAG 3
  5. DONE: Risk of no final product
  6. DONE: Risk of final product
  7. DONE: Risk of not pursuing WCAG 3
  8. DONE: Minimum Scope of Guidance
  9. Links
  10. DONE: Risk of not pursuing WCAG 3
  11. DONE: Risk of no final product

1. Proposed Approach - Demonstrated Solutions

AGWG has so far discussed several options for the next charter, which will start November 2022. The group seems to be divided about what direction to take. This is in part because there are still many unanswered questions about what will actually be in WCAG 3, how we can possibly solve some of the challenges we're trying to solve, how to do it all in a reasonable time frame, etc..

For the next charter, we want to focus specifically on demonstrating solutions to those unanswered questions. Please review the PROPOSED Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Charter.

Please review sections 1.2 Focus for the 2022-2024 Charter, 2.1 WCAG 3, and 3.1 Normative Specifications. This question is focused on WCAG 3. Anything not directly related to WCAG 3 will be reviewed separately. Do you:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 2
Agree with the proposal with some adjustments 8
Prefer something else, but will not object 2
Prefer something else, and will object

Details

Responder Proposed Approach - Demonstrated Solutions
JaEun Jemma Ku
David MacDonald
Jennifer Delisi
Andrew Somers
Makoto Ueki
Suzanne Taylor
Jaunita George
Jake Abma
Sarah Horton
Charles Adams
Janina Sajka
Detlev Fischer
Michael Cooper
Mary Jo Mueller
Alastair Campbell
Gregg Vanderheiden
Shawn Lauriat
Todd Libby
Jonathan Avila Agree with the proposal with some adjustments
Mike Pluke Agree with the proposal with some adjustments
Melanie Philipp
Wilco Fiers Agree with the proposal
Gundula Niemann Agree with the proposal with some adjustments I would like to add to close gaps in the exiting guidelines to the list of known challenges. There are some already identified gaps and logical enhancement which already have been put into words, and I would like to keep the option to work on these or incorporate gap closures with other efforts.
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Prefer something else, but will not object I would personally (chair hat off) prefer we focus on guidance and test level work first, but (chair hat on) based on the conversations to date this seems like the approach most likely to get consensus, I can see a way forward with this, and will fully support it if the group reaches consensus.

A Pull Request with the requested changes that may not require discussion is at: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2313
Review version: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/19-april-charter-discussion/charter.html

Notes on Comments not included:
- Laura: I am failing to see the difference between 1 and 2 in your comments.
- Shadi: I believe #2 and #3 need discussion. #4 will need proposed definitions if we agree to include them.
Laura Carlson Prefer something else, but will not object I would prefer that we migrate guidelines first.

The Working Group doesn't effectively balance more than 1 large piece of work at a time. My biggest concern with trying to do ALL new major components such as creating new guidelines, working on conformance, etc. and not starting by adding to and concentrating on what already enjoys consensus is that we won't make much progress. Getting bogged down in 3rd party is a big risk that wastes time. It has has too many fundamental issues.

However with that said, I agree, if the following 3 edits are made:

1. Add the text "that has AG Working Group consensus" to the sentence:

"Any requirement or challenge without a demonstrated solution by the end of the next charter will be excluded from WCAG 3."

So it would read:

"Any requirement or challenge without a demonstrated solution that has AG Working Group consensus by the end of the next charter will be excluded from WCAG 3."

2. Add the text "and lacks AG Working Group consensus" to the sentence:

"Any requirement or challenge without a demonstrated solution by the end of the next charter will be excluded from WCAG 3."

So it would read:

"Any requirement or challenge without a demonstrated solution and lacks AG Working Group consensus by the end of the next charter will be excluded from WCAG 3.

3. Either eliminate the text, "in a reasonable amount of time" from the bullet point:

* "Rewriting existing guidelines in a reasonable amount of time,"

or add the text "in a reasonable amount of time" to the bullet points:

* "Creating new guidelines for emerging technologies,
and"
* "Complex conformance challenges, such as third-party content, website conformance, scoring, accessibility statements, etc."

I would prefer removing "in a reasonable amount of time" from the 1st bullet as it is subjective.
Bruce Bailey Agree with the proposal with some adjustments I have some questions about the FTE assignments. The 0.05 line staffing (so, not Judy) is of some concern for me. Probably some (maybe most) of those reflect lack of context on my part.

Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal We need to start putting deadlines on developing solutions and not keep starting over.
Shadi Abou-Zahra Agree with the proposal with some adjustments Section "WCAG 3 Conformance Model" is confusing. I suggest the following changes:

#1. Add "conformance model" as a new bullet to the list outlining the WCAG 3 wide review draft (near the top of section 2.1). Developing the guidelines and the conformance model are not separable work items, and need to be addressed together.

#2. The scope of the conformance model needs to address "third-party". This is separate from the question of how this will be addressed (e.g. through scoring, accessibility statements, etc.). We cannot continue deferring this decision indefinitely.

#3. List other types of challenging content besides "third-party" as part of the scope. For example, online maps, visual data (e.g. radar images), arts (in image, video, and audio formats), and other content also needs to be addressed by WCAG 3.

#4. Clarify what is meant by "third party-content" and by "emerging technologies". These terms are vague and mean different things to different people. If we do not define them for ourselves now, we risk raising false expectations and disappointment.

Andrew Kirkpatrick Have we already had what we would regard as a wide review draft for WCAG 3.0?

Is this part saying that there may be a WCAG 2.3?
Is it also saying that any stand-alone resource that is regarded as a part of WCAG 3 must be published as a draft within this charter period or it won't be part of WCAG 3? I'm not sure how we know...
"AG WG will explore options for publishing WCAG 3 in stages or as modules. If any part of WCAG 3 will be published as a stand-alone resource, it will be made available either as a note or a working draft within this charter period. If a transitional document between WCAG 2.2 and WCAG 3 is to be created, a first draft of it will be published by the end of the charter."

For conformance, the charter proposal indicates that the "scope of the conformance model" will be defined, but that is, I assume, different from completing the conformance model? IF so, this is a problem. We need a conformance model defined.
Michael Gower Agree with the proposal with some adjustments The "and for older users" kinda jumped out at me as odd. I'd be inclined to shove that at the end of the first sentence (... and also benefits older users and people without disabilities.) But I can live with it as is.

"...understand how conformance evaluations for WCAG 3 will work." That 'will' makes me a little nervous. "Can"?

Simple wordsmithing on third bullet of 1.2: remove "will" (already in the preamble) to read. "have decided how..."

I
Kim Dirks Agree with the proposal with some adjustments The wording of this section is problematic and should use the social model rather than the medical model.
==
Following these guidelines will make content more accessible to people with a wide range of disabilities, including accommodations for blindness, low vision and other vision impairments; deafness and hearing loss; limited movement and dexterity; speech disabilities; sensory disorders; cognitive and learning disabilities; and combinations of these.
==
Perhaps along the lines of:
Following these guidelines will make content more accessible to people with a wide range of functional needs, including without vision or partial vision, without hearing or partial hearing, without movement or dexerity or partial dexterity, without speech or partial speech, ... etc. This wording isn't right but closer.
John Foliot Agree with the proposal with some adjustments As others have already noted in this survey, we absolutely need to resolve the conformance model during this next charter period.

We have spent over 5 years on this activity, and still today nobody can clearly articulate what the differences are between Bronze and Gold, or how that would be measured at scale. (Vague references to "scores" of 3.5 / 4 or greater are poorly documented and extremely unclear how they are arrived at in the current draft.)

There is ample evidence that the lack of a legitimate conformance model that addresses the needs articulated after the launch of our FPWD, and the subsequent (still relatively unanswered) comments in GitHub Issues around this topic has been stalling progress on multiple fronts. (https://github.com/w3c/silver/labels/section:%20conformance)

I have been personally chastised more than once about bringing up this topic/requirement during calls ("The Chairs do not want to talk about that topic at this time"), but the studious refusal to tackle this critical need has reached alarming proportions now, and failing to see that issue resolved during the next charter period would be an indication of complete failure.

2. Comments on Sections

Please review sections 2.2 Non WCAG 3 Scope, 2.3 Out of Scope, and 3.2 Other Deliverables in PROPOSED Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Charter. These sections are an early draft. Please provide comments about anything you feel needs to be added, removed, or changed.

Note: We will not discuss this question in the meeting but will take these comments into account in the next draft.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results

Details

Responder Comments on Sections
JaEun Jemma Ku
David MacDonald
Jennifer Delisi
Andrew Somers
Makoto Ueki
Suzanne Taylor
Jaunita George
Jake Abma
Sarah Horton
Charles Adams
Janina Sajka
Detlev Fischer
Michael Cooper
Mary Jo Mueller
Alastair Campbell
Gregg Vanderheiden
Shawn Lauriat
Todd Libby
Jonathan Avila Guidance on applying WCAG 2.1 and WCAG 2.2 to non-web technology is mentioned in 3.2 under other deliverables - but, this understates the importance of it and that it should be at least called out in 2.2
Mike Pluke I think that Jonathan Avila is right about the importance of extending the WCAG2ICT Task Force work to WCAG 2.1 and, soon hopefully, WCAG 2.2.

The WCAG2ICT TF was set-up to support the commitment that those developing US Section 508 and the European EN 301 549 had made to apply WCAG 2.0 to non-web technology. Having committed to that direction, those developing these standards have an ongoing need to understand how best to apply WCAG 2.1 and soon, hopefully, WCAG 2.2 to non-web technology.

Having the collective wisdom of a subset of AGWG experts looking at this issue will minimise the risk of greater divergence, in interpretations of how the post WCAG 2.0 SCs can best be applied to non-web technology.
Melanie Philipp Please ensure that the Charter addresses a concrete plan to process open wcag repo Github issues asking for interpretation of WCAG 2.X as it applies to Web Content.

Currently (as of 4.18.2022). There are over 550 open issues on the wcag repo. I did a quick (non-exhaustive) scan of other W3C github repos: this number is not in line with the majority of Rec Track repos I reviewed.

Despite the plan to focus on WCAG 3 once WCAG 2.2 is complete, WCAG 2.X is not retiring any time soon.

The wcag repo has years of issues asking for information on interpreting or applying WCAG in various scenarios. I personally spend hours digging through the wcag repo for answers to these types of questions: All. The. Time. When I see that my question has already been asked, I say “Yes!”. But all too often, I see that some back and forth may happen, representing the (often conflicting) opinion of a few people, many times referencing other related, unresolved questions. Official resolution happens infrequently. My “happy” turns to “sad”.

Without guidance from AGWG on these issues of applicability or interpretation, people are left unable to apply WCAG consistently. As a standard referenced by regulations and legal decisions across the globe [as opposed to (all?) other W3C recs], *serious* progress on answering questions of the application or interpretation of WCAG to Web Content really *must* happen.

I agree that WCAG2ICT is an important initiative. (I volunteered to work on the Task Force last year when the call went out.) Even more so, providing answers to the Github questions asking for interpretation of WCAG as it applies to Web Content, is the foundation of our Chartered scope.

I would like to see the next AGWG Charter address this directly. Perhaps by the creation of a Task Force for this purpose or some other “official” path forward - with higher priority than non Web Content work. I and everyone concerned with applying WCAG consistently will thank you. And, the work put into this effort will help to shed light on gaps in WCAG 2.X and inform WCAG 3 work as well.
Wilco Fiers
Gundula Niemann no comment from my side at the moment
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Laura Carlson
Bruce Bailey +1 to JA and other comments that WCAG2ICT under 3.2 Other Deliverables feels to me as a higher a priority item than currently implied.

I would note that while an WCAG2ICT update is strictly about 2.1/2.2 -- IMHO the exercise is a perquisite for completing W3CAG. I can explain on the call if that would be helpful.

Under 2.3 Out of Scope, we have AG WG "is not required to be" and "does not". I agree with the intent. I would prefer to have some discussion for more nuanced phrasing.
Jeanne F Spellman
Shadi Abou-Zahra #1. The primary work here needs to be on maintaining WCAG 2.x and providing support for the community. The third bullet touches on this topic but it needs to be more prominent and more explicit about the scope of work. It also needs to describe processing and resolving GitHub issues. I wonder if this type of support for WCAG 2.x can/should happen in the same working group as the new work on WCAG 3?

#2. Could also some of the auxiliary work described in bullets 1, 2, and 5 be done elsewhere? For example, bullets 1 and 2 seem to describe Community Group type of work. If not, then these activities need to map to specific deliverables of the working group with clearly described milestones, timelines, and success criteria (even for non-REC deliverables). Currently, these bullets are to vague to support.

#3. Why is the work on Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) listed here, when it seems to be becoming an integral part of WCAG 3? My understanding is that this work was created to support a gap in WCAG 2.x but should become part of WCAG 3, which is currently happening. We should encourage and foster this development, to accelerate the completion of a testable WCAG 3 specification.

#4. Add a new work item along the lines of "Guidance for Adopting WCAG in Policies", which may be shared deliverable with the Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG). They already have a resource called "Developing Organizational Policies on Web Accessibility" [1] with similar guidance for policy makers. This would relieve some of the debates on the WCAG 3 conformance model [2].

[1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/planning/org-policies/
[2] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Michael Gower
Kim Dirks
John Foliot I agree with the features listed as out of scope.

3. DONE: Chartering Proposal

The next 2-year chartering period will start in October 2022. We need to identify what deliverables we will be working on during those two years. We we discussed several options and support was fairly evenly split between them. The chairs are proposing a compromise approach between the alternatives discussed at the 01 February 2022 meeting. Do you:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 9
Agree with the proposal with some adjustments 9
Something else 5

Details

Responder DONE: Chartering ProposalComments
JaEun Jemma Ku Agree with the proposal I lack understanding/historical context regarding compromised section in a "compromise approach". However, I agree with the proposal unless there is a different version.
David MacDonald Agree with the proposal with some adjustments I don't see anything about a release of WCAG 2.2 in that charter period. I'm guessing that is because we are planning to release 2.2 in this Charter period before October.
We might want a fallback in there in case there are delays.

"If WCAG 2.2 has not yet been released before this charter period, complete and release WCAG 2.2"

I like Jake's suggestion (from minutes)
==============
isn't it a possibility to just look at what we have and see if we can just embed wcag 3 principles, iterative change for the better, wcag 2 isn't completely broken.
... Do something with that. Have a solid core. Open up the conformance model a bit.... Add some COGA in there and see if we can't iterate. ... It seems like a really good possibility, and you can deliver on a shorter time.
==================

Not sure it is well reflected in the charter proposal on my first read of the Charter proposal. Perhaps that is OK since charters are just broad strokes.
I like the idea of incremental releases building on 2.2.

Jennifer Delisi Agree with the proposal with some adjustments • If the chartering involves also meeting the deadlines listed in the WCAG 3 schedule (draft), I have concerns that the Role of user and usability testing in scoring may not be complete within Q3 of 2022. I would recommend giving this 2 quarters of time. This topic is of specific interest to some of the task forces, like COGA, and therefore may require a bit more time to get feedback, and have reviews.
○ Also, if the Guidelines listed in the WCAG 3 Schedule (Draft) include work being done, I do not see Findable Help on this list. Apologies if I am misunderstanding how this list was generated.
• I recommend using full form of CMS in this document, as not everyone will understand the reference. In the United States, there are several uses for "CMS documents" such as content management system, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, etc. The distinction in the first use case would be very helpful.
In Chartering Period Oct 2022-Oct 2024 it references "Everything else (2-5 above)" yet I only find a list with 4 items above. I am answering based on this being a typo and there are only 4 above.
Andrew Somers Agree with the proposal with some adjustments My concern is the proposal lacks clarity, and lacks defined process.
Makoto Ueki Agree with the proposal
Suzanne Taylor Agree with the proposal with some adjustments I think a core issue with conformance and third party content is that the discussions and proposals tend to stay VERY high-level, while the impact of these aspects of WCAG 3.0 depends primarily on the details. The high-level proposals can never actually get approved and move forward for this reason. This also takes up a lot of meeting time - quite a bit of meeting time sounds like legal rule making hearings more than W3C working group discussions, even though nobody seems to arguing against these ideas at such a high level.

Rather than a separate module, expressed in the proposal as, "Tentative FPWD of Third Party Content Module (remove if no draft by May)" . I would recommend that "Outcomes for Third Party Content" be included in "Partial WCAG Core Content".

A separate subgroup or even separate charter might continue to explore high-level ideas as that is very helpful, but the technical/UX AGWG's charter and meeting time should focus on the details.
Jaunita George Agree with the proposal
Jake Abma Something else The balance after 6 years of effort right now is not in the favor of concrete proofed examples to build upon.
It seems like a lot of talks are going in circles and the probably way too broad scope prevent from making progress.

The Charter doesn't mention WCAG 2.x and seems like there are fixed decision in there who might turn out not to be feasible. Like ATAG, UAAG, Protocols, Scoring / metrics, Critical Errors etc. where decisions are not made yet, or any concrete proof / evidence of examples usable for WCAG 3.

If we want to continuously improve and deliver with small iterations on a constant basis we should use all the good we have right now.
If it ain't that broke, and it is not, don't try to fix it by throwing away what you have.

Building upon the solid work we have seems like a proper idea to explore more than we have done till now.
Sarah Horton Agree with the proposal with some adjustments - Change to: “Follow documented writing process for Guidelines, Outcomes and Methods to produce initial breakdown of outcomes and guidelines, including those related to third party content”
- Remove “Tentative FPWD of Third Party Content Module (remove if no draft by May)”
- Clarify what we mean by “CMS documents”
Charles Adams Agree with the proposal I believe this proposed approach takes a little bit of every other idea and proposal that has been discussed, and charts a path forward that we can accomplish.
Janina Sajka Agree with the proposal While I agree, I think it may be useful to say the minimum about the 2.x series. Ostensibly, by the time this proposed charter goes to the AC, WCAG 2.2 should have reached PR, or about to do so. The focus needs to shift to 3--or we may need a different working framework in W3C process entirely.
Detlev Fischer Something else I have to admit that at this point in time, I am not sure whether this provides the right framework. I realize we have to put something in, but I am missing right now two things that should be top priority: 1 overall content structure, 2. conformance model. This seems crucial to get beyond the impasse we now experience, with most discussion time even up by discussion procedure.
A I said before, I believe a kind of high-level sorting exercise will be needed to see how atomic content-facing requirements (existing requirements spread out over SCs in 2.X, and new requirements from 3 / Silver) can be grouped into WCAG 3 guidelines in the most meaningful way. A sorting exercise should help define guideline names and guideline scope iteratively (all this subject to later change, but giving a coherent feeel for the full set that the 5 draft guidelines of the first Silver draft cannot provide). THEN is the time to 'migrate' content from 2.X, and new content drafted in Silver. This may align with Gregg's comment that neither 2.X nor 3 as it stands are he right starting point.

I agree with Shadi that we need a new conformance model ASAP, one that avoids the pitfalls of the old one where hardly anything is ever going to be conforming. But I think the requirements structure and the conformance model are two separate issues. A draft structure can help validate a new conformance model of course.
So I would make these explicit topics that can run in parallel:
1. Draft high-level structure of guidelines / outcomes (content requirements sorting and guideline naming/scoping exercise)
2. Draft a new conformance model, test it based on the new draft high-level structure

Michael Cooper
Mary Jo Mueller Agree with the proposal with some adjustments These thoughts are a little incomplete, as I hadn't finished analyzing this early enough. I think a chunked approach, addressing some of the core issues in WCAG 2.x first would be best (Jake's approach). Conformance needs to be a higher priority. See details in my answers to the next question.
Alastair Campbell
Gregg Vanderheiden Something else This looks like we are creating 4 different documents -- none of which are a recommendation.

A recommendation usually contains provisions and conformance. Here we have 4 documents -- all of which have conformance mentioned.

Since they are all coming from the working group - it sounds like the working group is making recommendations to itself (who else are they recommending conformance to?)

Suggest there be one normative document (WCAG)

if the working group wants to create task forces to create reports on subtopics - it can. but it does not need to mention those (or be restricted to any list) in the charter document.
Shawn Lauriat Agree with the proposal with some adjustments I'd only want to make minor-ish adjustments to things that do not need to change what exactly would go into the charter, so we can discuss those adjustments outside of this conversation.
Todd Libby Agree with the proposal
Jonathan Avila
Mike Pluke
Melanie Philipp
Wilco Fiers Agree with the proposal with some adjustments PM hat off;
Looking at the progress of WCAG 2.x, and at the velocity of AGWG in general over the last few years, I can't quite see how we'd be able to get to a "core" of WCAG 3.0 into CR by the end of 2026. That's less time then we spent on 2.1 and 2.2, and we had far less to do, and a predefined structure to work from.

Secondly, I'm not keen on what this proposal isn't saying; that website / app conformance, metrics, and third-party content won't get to recommendation until 2028 or 2030. And that's assuming we don't have the type of delays WCAG 2.0 had.

I think solving new problems should have higher priority than recreating solutions to problems that are largely solved already. If we can figure some way out that we can dramatically improve our velocity I'd say yeah, lets go for it. I'd be all for that, but if so let's first figure out how to do that.
Gundula Niemann Something else I feel it does not make sense to work on the 'WCAG Core Content' without considering how to apply it to complex / large web pages and to applications. The current wording suggests that exactly this is planned.
What works in a small scale might not work in large scale.

Apart form that:
- the charter should name which part belongs to working on WCAG 3
- It should be clear the May of which year forms the deadline for third party content
- maintenance on WCAG 2.2 is foreseeable as it is newly published this year
- explain abbreviations




Rachael Bradley Montgomery Agree with the proposal
Laura Carlson Agree with the proposal with some adjustments Agree if:

1. Third Party Content Module is not mentioned in the Oct 2022-Oct 2024 chartering period. It has too many fundamental issues.

2. The document is edited to incorporate the second approach (to use WCAG 2.2 itself as the foundation, creating additions and changes which iterate towards a WCAG 3 that meets the Requirements for WCAG 3.) if that is what is decided by the Working Group.
Bruce Bailey Agree with the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal
Shadi Abou-Zahra Something else I think we need to tackle the issue of conformance first, while continuing to iteratively add requirements into the new framework as they become available. I don't think conformance can be easily separated into individual modules as this proposal seems to suggest. The current conformance model has known issues, which are causing significant barriers to the adoption of WCAG. Resolving these issues cannot wait until 2028 at the earliest, according to this proposal. Requirements can continue to be incubated in parallel and further developed one by one. I'm concerned that without agreeing on a new conformance model and framework for writing the requirements, we risk continuing to go in circles because the big picture remains unclear. I think tackling the issue of conformance first would get us an implementable standard sooner than the current proposal, thereby have bigger impact on improving accessibility for everyone.

The Silver conformance sub-group has been making good progress on identifying and documenting some of the conformance issues, which could help formulating some of the work ahead -- also for the new Charter:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Michael Gower
Kim Dirks
John Foliot

4. DONE: Approach to WCAG 3

The working group faces a tight timeline to craft the next charter for the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group. At the 01 February 2022 meeting, a suggestion was offered to use the existing WCAG 2.2 as a foundation to build towards WCAG 3. There was some support expressed for this approach and we would like to better understand members’ preferences. The chairs and task force leaders have identified two options which incorporate feedback from all the discussions that have been conducted by AGWG members.

Please note the following:

  • This question is not asking about whether or not we should do another WCAG 2 version. This is a separate conversation that will be addressed at a later date.
  • WCAG 2.2 will be completed and maintained regardless of how this survey question is answered.
  • Working Group resources will be dedicated to WCAG 3, regardless of the approach the Working Group selects for creating WCAG 3.
  • The current approach to developing WCAG 3 (Option 1 below) was agreed to via CfC on 25 October 2016.

Do you prefer that the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
NoYes, but prefer notYesYes, and prefer
Use Silver Task Force’s transformative approach: Meet the Requirements for WCAG 3 by building a new foundation, developed from Silver research and explorations done so far, and then migrate WCAG 2.2 guidance into the new structure. 5 3 19 5
Follow a different approach: Use WCAG 2.2 itself as the foundation, creating additions and changes which iterate towards a WCAG 3 that meets the Requirements for WCAG 3. 9 4 13 6

Ranking of choices in order of least unacceptable/most prefered:

RanksAll responders:
1Use Silver Task Force’s transformative approach: Meet the Requirements for WCAG 3 by building a new foundation, developed from Silver research and explorations done so far, and then migrate WCAG 2.2 guidance into the new structure.
2Follow a different approach: Use WCAG 2.2 itself as the foundation, creating additions and changes which iterate towards a WCAG 3 that meets the Requirements for WCAG 3.

Details

Responder Use Silver Task Force’s transformative approach: Meet the Requirements for WCAG 3 by building a new foundation, developed from Silver research and explorations done so far, and then migrate WCAG 2.2 guidance into the new structure.Follow a different approach: Use WCAG 2.2 itself as the foundation, creating additions and changes which iterate towards a WCAG 3 that meets the Requirements for WCAG 3.Comments
JaEun Jemma Ku Yes Yes, but prefer not I responded as "yes, but prefer not" to "Follow a different approach". It is because that option sounds practical and reasonable in the way the question was formed.

I am wondering how "Follow a different approach" will be different from the currently existing approach AG Working Group(WG) has been using for the last one or two years. My subjective impression is that the current AG WG approach was not successful enough to make distinctive progress in WCAG 3.
David MacDonald Yes Yes, and prefer I like Jake's suggestion (from minutes)
==============
isn't it a possibility to just look at what we have and see if we can just embed wcag 3 principles, iterative change for the better, wcag 2 isn't completely broken.
... Do something with that. Have a solid core. Open up the conformance model a bit.... Add some COGA in there and see if we can't iterate. ... It seems like a really good possibility, and you can deliver on a shorter time.
==================

To me, figuring out the organization of the standard will emerge from techniques that are being implemented in the real world. In other words, if we think of all the "methods" (or techniques) as individual marbles, I would want to dump all the marbles onto the carpet and look at them and sort them. That is how I would figure out how to organize them once we see them all (or a lot of them).

This is what happened for WCAG 2.0. We had tons of techniques from 1.0 and new things were developed after 1.0 was released. When they were at a critical mass, we got into organizing them into the new structure.

We can use the WCAG 2.x conformance model meanwhile watching the emerging best practices and new techniques and new genres of accommodations ... and the new structure for WCAG 3 may be easier at that point.
Jennifer Delisi Yes No The requirements for WCAG 3, section 4.5 says "The core guidelines are understandable by a non-technical audience." I am unclear how the current style of normative language used in WCAG 2x could meet this requirement. I would need more information about how this could be achieved in order to change my response. There are many people working to adhere to the guidelines who produce content for documents, social media posts, and other uses. They are required by their organizations to follow, or just want to follow, WCAG 2x and find it difficult. Improving the ability to understand the guidelines will increase the number of people able to improve the accessibility of content. It will also help people who want to advocate for accessibility improvements.
Andrew Somers Yes No A great deal of caution needs to be observed when discussing older standards which may be either obsolete or near end-of-life already, and it is important that SCs not be "thrown in" to a new, modern structure like WCAG 3 just to have a "version of them". Using WCAG 2.2 as a "foundation" is a poor idea given the paradigm shift that Silver represents.
Makoto Ueki Yes, and prefer Yes, but prefer not If we adopt the different approach, we must rewrite WCAG 2.2 in plain language. And we also need to reorganize Success Criteria which are complicated to be more easily understandable and doable. For instance, SC 1.1.1 should focus on images and move other things to other Success Criteria, like videos to Guidelines 1.2, form controls to SC 2.4.6/3.3.2, and so on. And SC 2.4.6 and 3.3.2 can be merged into single SC in terms of labels for form controls.
Suzanne Taylor Yes Yes Either one of these could look very much like the other, as the work moves forward and we get into the details!
Jaunita George No Yes, and prefer
Jake Abma No Yes, and prefer The question might be "sudden" for some and without clear explanation on what we can do, what it means, for using WCAG 2.2 as a basis and build upon it to come to WCAG 3.

Things like:

- Breaking up the requirements for acceptance criteria
- Explore and adjust the conformance model
- Redefine some terms / definition like 'accessibility supported' etc.
- Re-new the testing procedures
- Get rid of A, AA, and AAA with a even better approach
- Re-write step-by-step or put a 'layer on top' with clear language and how-to's
- Possibly present in a different way for improved user experience / usability
- Make sure all what did not fit in until now will have all opportunity to be included equally (like lots of COGA wishes)
- Keep pass/fail but open up for what will come next to make sure the more 'subjective' needs are covered
- Etc.

BUT, extend from WCAG 2.2 / WCAG 2.x so we can deliver reliable, confident, fast, well known, and iterative.
Sarah Horton Yes No But only if AGWG believes in and values the approach and working group members commit to and engage in doing the work.
Charles Adams Yes, and prefer Yes, but prefer not I believe that the ways WCAG 3 want to achieve the goals is too challenging and even impossible. I also believe that every time I think something is challenging or impossible, someone with greater knowledge or imagination than I possess teaches me otherwise. WCAG 3 has had one draft that was far from perfect and has been demonstrated to need additional work. The current approach of WCAG 3 deserves to continue and be explored.
Janina Sajka Yes, and prefer Yes Refactoring at this time, and doing so on the fly while casting aside 7 years of hard work is just not going to appear well thought out. I should think that matters?
Detlev Fischer Yes Yes
Michael Cooper Yes Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, but prefer not Yes, and prefer In my review of the Silver draft and when it is compared to WCAG, it is so very different. The language, the structure. I'm not saying it is bad, the focus on usability is great. However, the transition path to actually understanding and using Silver, will be a very tough road - especially for large organizations, if there aren't iterations of WCAG 2.x that help us take that journey. So I answered yes, but prefer not - not because Silver isn't a good end-game, it is. We just need more steps to get there.

The question is how to keep things moving forward, building on what has been learned so far in the Silver work and yet still address some of the existing currently pressing problems in WCAG 2.x. It is my personal view that these are:

1) Conformance model - I agree with Shadi that conformance for large websites, complex applications, and the all or nothing per-page conformance cannot wait to be the last thing addressed. Regulations exist now and more are coming. They're all adopting the current WCAG 2.x conformance with some countries adopting the power to recall products or services that are not 100% conformant. Having additional levels of conformance or some way to show progress/effort toward conformance would be quite helpful.

2) Current full implementation of WCAG in the wild is low - Personnel with core competencies in accessibility are difficult to find. In a lot of cases, universities are not graduating students with solid competency in accessibility. Most graduates are unaware of WCAG or have had very little exposure to it. Not sure how we can solve this problem, but adding a lot of new requirements will not necessarily help people get started.

3) Plainer language, better examples/techniques will definitely help people learn - especially the approach of having some role-based how-to.

4) ATAG and UUAG - definitely areas that are not well addressed where WCAG is concerned. Need to have practical examples, guidance on what to do to help authors meet WCAG
Alastair Campbell Yes Yes
Gregg Vanderheiden No No Since this requires full group agreement -- it is better to start with what there is agreement on and add to it.

Just building on 2.2 is not sufficient -- will not work.
But starting from something from silver also will not.

Suggest a third approach which is to focus first on a set of rules and a structure for WCAG -- and then pull from BOTH of the two into this new agreed on structure.

With all of the successful guidelines to date 1 and 2 we started with a structure and how to decide what goes in -- and then modify that as needed as we fill it in. In WCAG 2's case -- a third of the way in, based on the requirements (SC) we had - we reorganized. So we should be open to that too.
Shawn Lauriat Yes No
Todd Libby No No
Jonathan Avila Yes Yes
Mike Pluke Yes Yes
Melanie Philipp Yes Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes, but prefer not Yes, and prefer See my comment above; I think solving new problems should have higher priority than recreating solutions to problems that are largely solved already.
Gundula Niemann Yes No
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Yes No I do not believe we can create a standard that meets many of the requirements by iterating on WCAG 2. Specifically, I believe Flexible maintenance and extensibility, Motivation, Readabilty/Usability, and Scope would be difficult without fundamental changes to how we approach guidelines.

While it has been and will continue to be hard to make transformative leaps while retaining what is great about WCAG 2 (measurability and repeatability), I believe that AG and Silver combined have the expertise and diversity of perspective to succeed. I believe stepping away from the approach we agreed to in 2016 when we are making progress would be a mistake.
Laura Carlson No Yes, and prefer I like the idea of building on the solid work we already have in WCAG 2.X. Embed 3.0 principles. Add more for COGA and Low vision. Rewrite in plain language. Etc.
Bruce Bailey Yes, and prefer Yes, but prefer not I am most interested in approaches that provide WCAG3 the time and space to be as transformative as possible, hence my merely tentative support for the second option.

It is my opinion that the AGWG should *also* be working on a WCAG 2.x which is less backwards compatible than has been our pattern. (I do recall surveys showing little enthusiasm for this idea.) It would be more a 2.5 or 2.9, not really 2.3.
Jeanne F Spellman Yes, and prefer No If WCAG2.2 is the foundation, then we lose the research and the analysis of user needs that has been an essential part of WCAG3 since its inception. A new version is the opportunity to make major improvements to a spec. We have been hearing the weaknesses of WCAG2 for over a decade and we need to take transformative action to develop a WCAG3 relevant for the modern web and the future.
Shadi Abou-Zahra Yes Yes
Andrew Kirkpatrick Yes, but prefer not Yes The current approach to developing WCAG 3 was agreed to by a CFC >5 years ago. That duration of time suggests that the approach has problems. The WCAG 2.2 approach isn't ideal either. Whatever we do, we need to figure out the conformance model as a top priority.
Michael Gower Yes Yes
Kim Dirks Yes Yes
John Foliot Yes Yes

5. DONE: Risk of no final product

Our explorations of the timeline for WCAG 3 suggest that we would not be ready to take any specification to W3C Recommendation by the end of the next charter period. The proposal we last discussed was to commit to publishing the updated guidelines within 2 charter periods.

What do you consider the greatest risk of AG not publishing a finalized product within the next charter period?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results

Details

Responder DONE: Risk of no final product
JaEun Jemma Ku
David MacDonald
Jennifer Delisi
Andrew Somers
Makoto Ueki
Suzanne Taylor
Jaunita George
Jake Abma
Sarah Horton
Charles Adams
Janina Sajka
Detlev Fischer
Michael Cooper It is hard to predict if the AC would accept a charter that does not include a Rec, given the context of the time elapsed to date for WCAG 3. There might be a contingent applauding our realistic planning, and another advocating an alternate approach. I don't know which side would win.
Mary Jo Mueller Not finishing within 2 or more charter periods. It should be allowable that there isn't a completed standard within a single charter period. Should be able to state that x number of drafts or some other concrete goals like that are set as reasonable goals for 2-year charter to at least demonstrate there is forward progress made. However, we don't want it so open ended that a major standard release takes 10-15 years to complete. The risk with that is being behind in having requirements that have been analyzed and covered for the latest technology, or addressing
Alastair Campbell Perceived lack of progress leading to other organisations trying to tackle the overall problem (less robustly).
Gregg Vanderheiden
Shawn Lauriat
Todd Libby That another organization will publish their own standards which in turn damages the perception of the AG WG and people turning elsewhere for guidance.
Jonathan Avila
Mike Pluke
Melanie Philipp
Wilco Fiers I feel that WCAG 2's largest problem is that it lacks situational considerations. Requirements are the same regardless of if you're a social media giant or a self-employed hair dresser. There are no considerations for organizations of different types and sizes. Next to nothing on how to handle third-party content, or interfacing with third-party platforms. There is no room for imperfections, either from people making mistakes, from unexpected interaction between different systems, or from solutions produced through AI.

This results, often in either completely unreasonable legal requirements, or full blown exemptions. I think that by focusing our next two charters on rewriting existing guidelines over addressing these problems, we further strengthen the argument of people lobbying for broad exemptions.

In terms of risk, I think that if anything is going to slow down, or even reverse adoption of WCAG; this seems like the most likely cause of it to me.
Gundula Niemann
Rachael Bradley Montgomery While I have heard reference to the risk that the AC may not approve our charter, I can not think there of any risks of taking 4 years to create quality guidance that outweigh publishing something that is incomplete or incorrect. If we slip much beyond 4 years, I believe the guidelines begin to risk becoming obsolete or replaced.
Laura Carlson I'm not sure. The AG working group not being taken seriously may be a risk.
Bruce Bailey The only risk I perceive from no "final" W3CAG product is the possibility of diminished support from AC. There would be risk from no updated public Working Draft within charter period, but that is not the question.
Jeanne F Spellman That another standards organization will start publishing an accessibility standard that better meets the needs of modern digital content.
Shadi Abou-Zahra The current series of WCAG 2.x has known issues, which make adoption increasingly difficult. Without tangible results in a foreseeable period, there is the risk of people increasingly turning elsewhere for guidance.
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Michael Gower I would not say there is a "greatest risk" of no finalized product. I do not think most informed people were anticipating it to be completed in the next charter.
Risks include: creating a void into which others might step, with their own information that could make things more complicated (lack of harmonization; lack of people pushing in the same direction).
The greater risk IMO is trying to rush a WCAG 3 to Recommendation in an unrealistic timeline.
Kim Dirks
John Foliot

6. DONE: Risk of final product

One way to mitigate risks from the previous question would be to identify components of WCAG 3 that could become a Recommendation in the next two-year charter period.

If we were to prioritize publishing some WCAG 3-related Recommendations in the next charter period, what do you consider the greatest risk from this?

Details

Responder
JaEun Jemma Ku
David MacDonald
Jennifer Delisi
Andrew Somers
Makoto Ueki
Suzanne Taylor
Jaunita George
Jake Abma
Sarah Horton
Charles Adams
Janina Sajka
Detlev Fischer
Michael Cooper The biggest risk of committing to publishing Recs in the charter period is failing to do so. That would seriously constrain, possible eliminate, the ability of the group to obtain a charter for the work it wants going forward.
Mary Jo Mueller IMO, publishing plain language, updated SC, understanding and techniques for WCAG 2.2 (perhaps using WCAG 3's newer formatting/organization and introducing the concepts of the language and user needs) would be very helpful and could be an interim step toward a WCAG 3. If there are some pressing SC that require change or addition, address only the most important of those. Even this might be difficult to deliver in a 2-year charter period.
Alastair Campbell People jumping on the guidelines that are published too early, perhaps discarding a more rounded approach (from 2.2).
Gregg Vanderheiden
Shawn Lauriat
Todd Libby People relying on guidelines that are published too early and pushing things that might not be necessary such as outcomes with a ratings system that might not be needed if we get to the conformance model and we find out that ratings system isn't needed, for example.
Jonathan Avila
Mike Pluke
Melanie Philipp
Wilco Fiers I think the biggest drawback of trying to chunk up WCAG 3 is that we might need to finalize things before we know how things will work out once its all put together. For example if we decide to write outcomes with a rating system, put that out as a recommendation, but then once we get to the conformance model we find that that rating system wasn't strictly necessary, we're going to have a very difficult time solving that.

I'm not all too worried about this though.
Gundula Niemann
Rachael Bradley Montgomery I believe if we focus on a smaller piece such as third-party content, we will take time away from the most important part, which I believe to be the guidelines, outcomes, methods and support material. I do not believe the group balances more than one large piece of work at a time effectively.
Laura Carlson Migrating 2.2 to 3.0 would be may be the safest way to proceed. Getting bogged down in 3rd party is a big risk that wastes time.
Bruce Bailey Asserting plans to have W3CAG related TR docs in next charter period -- but then missing the target date for those -- is a risk to AGWG credibility (from public and AC).
Jeanne F Spellman Confusion as to what specs to follow, but this could be mitigated with good communication.
Shadi Abou-Zahra I'm not sure if producing a Recommendation is the only way to mitigate risk. Possible being able to present a tangible and credible approach could be sufficient. Unfortunately, the progress on WCAG 3 so far might not be as promising.
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Michael Gower That the post-charter work could become unworkably constrained. One of the challenges with 3.0 is that it is so significant a change that itsuggests it needs to be tackled holistically. If some prescriptive subset of work is turned into a recommendation, it may negatively affect work going forward; greater insight gained may contradict what has been now enshrined in a Rec.
Just within 2.x work, the inability to alter existing language (for fear of affecting backward compatibility) has created problems.

On the other hand, if this Recommendation has no actual implementation facet, backward compatibility to 3.0 may not be an issue.

A two-year stint of trying to incorporate solid aspects of 3.0 work into 2.2 might both provide a target for the next charter and help mature aspects of 3.0.
Kim Dirks
John Foliot

7. DONE: Risk of not pursuing WCAG 3

If we do not have a viable plan to complete WCAG 3, with work we can obtain Advisory Committee support for and make the expected progress during the next charter period, we could have no choice but not to commit to it as a deliverable.

What do you see as the greatest risk of AG stopping WCAG 3.0 work?

Details

Responder
JaEun Jemma Ku
David MacDonald
Jennifer Delisi
Andrew Somers
Makoto Ueki
Suzanne Taylor
Jaunita George
Jake Abma
Sarah Horton
Charles Adams
Janina Sajka
Detlev Fischer
Michael Cooper Abandoning WCAG 3 would signal to the global accessibility community that W3C is no longer able to produce useful timely accessibility guidance. One or more organizations may attempt to fill the void and produce their own guidelines. If those organizations do not fully share the values that bring us together, the result could be something we would not want.
Mary Jo Mueller There is also risk that other organizations or jurisdictions (like Canada) may decide to create standards or requirements to address perceived gaps in the coverage of WCAG - especially for particular user needs they feel are not well addressed. There is also the risk that problematic SC within WCAG (e.g. Color contrast, 4.1.1 Parsing, etc.) are also not addressed since the WCAG 2.x series of standards has always had full backward compatibility. The all or nothing conformance would need to be addressed somewhere.
Alastair Campbell Actual lack of progress leading to other organisations trying to tackle the overall problem (less robustly).
Gregg Vanderheiden I think there would be a major breach of trust with the COGA community and others if we stopped WCAG 3.0 work. this doesnt mean we don't finish but if we don't try - if we stop
Shawn Lauriat
Todd Libby Community perception, other organizations taking the mantle of accessibility and leading the way to publishing work on it, and not doing it as well.
Jonathan Avila
Mike Pluke
Melanie Philipp
Wilco Fiers There's a difference between AG stopping work on WCAG 3, and not committing to any deliverables in the charter. Although in both cases, see my answer on Q2.
Gundula Niemann
Rachael Bradley Montgomery I believe that the consensus process used by the W3c and the efforts AG maktes to include people with disabiliites in the process, while imperfect, leads to better standards. I believe the biggest risk if we stop WCAG 3 is that another organization will write standards that better apply to new technology and are adopted but do not support people with disabilites as effectvely as WCAG.
Laura Carlson Other organizations taking the lead on accessibility.
Bruce Bailey The greatest risk here would be some other group asserting they could fill in the gap. This might be similar to what happened with WhatWG and HTML5, but probably with worse outcomes.
Jeanne F Spellman That ISO or another standards organization will develop an accessibility standard that will be adopted into regulatory environment. ISO already has a number of accessibility specs, and has the experts who could take up producing a modern digital accessibility standard if W3C stopped the work.
Shadi Abou-Zahra Depends on what the alternatives are. Maybe a reduced scope for WCAG 3.0?
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Michael Gower Perception in community; Loss of momentum.
Kim Dirks
John Foliot

8. DONE: Minimum Scope of Guidance

What is the best minimum scope for publishing guidance (outcomes, methods, and support materials) that would be acceptable to publish?

Another way to ask this is what would an acceptable published Minimum Viable Product (MVP) for the guidance segment? This question is not asking what we will start with but only trying to figure out if and how we can break down the guidance.

Please Note: The answers are listed from largest scope to smallest. Please mark the answers as follows:

  • Mark what you consider the most realistic minimum scope we should aim for as "yes and prefer." Please mark only 1 option as this.
  • Mark anything you would support as "Yes."
  • Mark anything you do not support but could live with as "Yes and prefer not."
  • Mark anything you would object to as "No."

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
NoYes, but prefer notYesYes, and prefer
Guidance comparable to WCAG 2.2 plus known gaps 3 2 13 2
Guidance comparable to WCAG 2.2 plus a few extra exemplar guidance 4 14 2
Guidance comparable to WCAG 2.2 5 13 2
A subset of guidance from WCAG 2.2 based on functional need 1 6 10 3
A subset of guidance from WCAG 2.2 based on test type 2 3 12 3
Something else (Add to comments) 1 1 14 4

Ranking of choices in order of least unacceptable/most prefered:

RanksAll responders:
1Guidance comparable to WCAG 2.2 plus a few extra exemplar guidance
2Guidance comparable to WCAG 2.2
3Something else (Add to comments)
4A subset of guidance from WCAG 2.2 based on functional need
5A subset of guidance from WCAG 2.2 based on test type
6Guidance comparable to WCAG 2.2 plus known gaps

Details

Responder Guidance comparable to WCAG 2.2 plus known gapsGuidance comparable to WCAG 2.2 plus a few extra exemplar guidanceGuidance comparable to WCAG 2.2A subset of guidance from WCAG 2.2 based on functional needA subset of guidance from WCAG 2.2 based on test typeSomething else (Add to comments)Comments
JaEun Jemma Ku
David MacDonald
Jennifer Delisi
Andrew Somers
Makoto Ueki
Suzanne Taylor
Jaunita George
Jake Abma
Sarah Horton
Charles Adams
Janina Sajka
Detlev Fischer
Michael Cooper Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not Yes Yes Yes, and prefer I'm interpreting this question as MVP for the first Rec release, knowing there would be a cadence of updates from there. In that case, I could support an even smaller MVP: one of the WCAG 2 subsets (don't care which) plus a few extra exemplar guidance. That is similar to the second option, but without the requirement for full WCAG 2 guidance, about which I think we could say "also continue to look at WCAG 2 for now".
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, and prefer Yes, and prefer Yes, and prefer Yes, but prefer not No No An update to understanding documents could incorporate all of the functional need analysis which is why I said "prefer not". I think the full functional needs analysis and documentation could be completed for all SC in this period of time. If it had said that, I would have answered Yes, and prefer. This will get the new functional needs socialized more. However, my previous Silver comments on the functional needs should be addressed with definitions/descriptions of the functional needs and how that affects use of technology, as well as more granular treatment of visual, hearing, and physical disabilities in the functional needs.
Alastair Campbell Yes Yes, and prefer Yes Yes, but prefer not Yes Yes, and prefer Something else: A subset of guidance from WCAG 2.2 plus a few extra exemplar guidelines which demonstrate how the structure & conformance is being extended.
Gregg Vanderheiden Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Shawn Lauriat Yes, but prefer not Yes Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not Yes, and prefer Some incremental work toward this guidance, so that we can focus on a more achievable piece, while producing something to publish that focuses on bringing in key stakeholders for feedback, rather than implementable guidance (which would come after that first step, building on it while incorporating the feedback from stakeholders earlier in the development process).
Todd Libby No Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not Yes, and prefer Yes, and prefer Yes
Jonathan Avila Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Mike Pluke Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Melanie Philipp Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Wilco Fiers No Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not No Yes, and prefer Yes
Gundula Niemann Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Yes Yes Yes, and prefer Yes, but prefer not No Yes, but prefer not
Laura Carlson No Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not Yes, and prefer Yes, and prefer Yes
Bruce Bailey Yes, and prefer Yes Yes Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not Yes My "Yes and prefer" response is iff published within Charter period (as implied from context).
Something else might be publishing outcomes but without methods and support materials (seems sketchy to me).
Something else could be "modules" of some kind (e.g., Clear Words, better contrast algorithm) cannibalized from current 3 work, but I worry that just pushes a TR W3CAG further out.
Jeanne F Spellman Yes Yes Yes Yes, and prefer Yes, but prefer not Yes Test type is too volatile, especially with the rapid advance in AI. We could easily structure ourselves into a corner that would quickly be obsolete.
Shadi Abou-Zahra Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Andrew Kirkpatrick Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Michael Gower Yes Yes Yes Yes, but prefer not Yes Yes, and prefer 1) A subset of 3.0 guidance applied to WCAG 2.2. Rather than focusing specifically on test type or functional needs, attempt to define the best point in time template that represents a hybrid of 2.2 requirements and 3.0 structure and language, informed by 3.0 philosophy.

2) Guidance comparable to WCAG that both prunes existing known issues (such as Parsing), revamps weak requirements (such as sufficient time) and supplements with some of the test type work.

Kim Dirks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
John Foliot Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

9. Links

The next 2-year chartering period will start in October 2022. This is not currently a question but rather a placeholder for key links.

draft charter

compromise approach

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results

Details

Responder LinksComments
JaEun Jemma Ku
David MacDonald
Jennifer Delisi
Andrew Somers
Makoto Ueki
Suzanne Taylor
Jaunita George
Jake Abma
Sarah Horton
Charles Adams
Janina Sajka
Detlev Fischer
Michael Cooper
Mary Jo Mueller
Alastair Campbell
Gregg Vanderheiden
Shawn Lauriat
Todd Libby
Jonathan Avila
Mike Pluke
Melanie Philipp
Wilco Fiers
Gundula Niemann
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Laura Carlson
Bruce Bailey
Jeanne F Spellman
Shadi Abou-Zahra
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Michael Gower
Kim Dirks
John Foliot

10. DONE: Risk of not pursuing WCAG 3

If we do not have a viable plan to complete WCAG 3, with work we can obtain Advisory Committee support for and make the expected progress during the next charter period, we could have no choice but not to commit to it as a deliverable.

What do you see as the greatest risk of AG stopping WCAG 3.0 work?

Details

Responder
JaEun Jemma Ku
David MacDonald
Jennifer Delisi
Andrew Somers
Makoto Ueki
Suzanne Taylor
Jaunita George
Jake Abma
Sarah Horton
Charles Adams
Janina Sajka
Detlev Fischer
Michael Cooper
Mary Jo Mueller
Alastair Campbell
Gregg Vanderheiden
Shawn Lauriat
Todd Libby
Jonathan Avila
Mike Pluke
Melanie Philipp
Wilco Fiers
Gundula Niemann
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Laura Carlson
Bruce Bailey Loss of credibility for AGWG.
Jeanne F Spellman
Shadi Abou-Zahra
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Michael Gower
Kim Dirks
John Foliot

11. DONE: Risk of no final product

Our explorations of the timeline for WCAG 3 suggest that we would not be ready to take any specification to W3C Recommendation by the end of the next charter period. The proposal we last discussed was to commit to publishing the updated guidelines within 2 charter periods.

What do you consider the greatest risk of AG not publishing a finalized product within the next charter period?

Details

Responder
JaEun Jemma Ku
David MacDonald
Jennifer Delisi
Andrew Somers
Makoto Ueki
Suzanne Taylor
Jaunita George
Jake Abma
Sarah Horton
Charles Adams
Janina Sajka
Detlev Fischer
Michael Cooper
Mary Jo Mueller
Alastair Campbell
Gregg Vanderheiden
Shawn Lauriat
Todd Libby
Jonathan Avila
Mike Pluke
Melanie Philipp
Wilco Fiers
Gundula Niemann
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Laura Carlson
Bruce Bailey That the delay prompts less qualified group to publish something.
Jeanne F Spellman
Shadi Abou-Zahra
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Michael Gower
Kim Dirks
John Foliot

More details on responses

  • JaEun Jemma Ku: last responded on 11, February 2022 at 20:38 (UTC)
  • David MacDonald: last responded on 11, February 2022 at 21:26 (UTC)
  • Jennifer Delisi: last responded on 11, February 2022 at 21:51 (UTC)
  • Andrew Somers: last responded on 12, February 2022 at 04:02 (UTC)
  • Makoto Ueki: last responded on 12, February 2022 at 07:28 (UTC)
  • Suzanne Taylor: last responded on 12, February 2022 at 15:53 (UTC)
  • Jaunita George: last responded on 14, February 2022 at 18:25 (UTC)
  • Jake Abma: last responded on 15, February 2022 at 07:27 (UTC)
  • Sarah Horton: last responded on 15, February 2022 at 09:19 (UTC)
  • Charles Adams: last responded on 15, February 2022 at 14:55 (UTC)
  • Janina Sajka: last responded on 15, February 2022 at 15:50 (UTC)
  • Detlev Fischer: last responded on 15, February 2022 at 19:59 (UTC)
  • Michael Cooper: last responded on 4, April 2022 at 20:26 (UTC)
  • Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 5, April 2022 at 13:34 (UTC)
  • Alastair Campbell: last responded on 5, April 2022 at 14:38 (UTC)
  • Gregg Vanderheiden: last responded on 5, April 2022 at 15:38 (UTC)
  • Shawn Lauriat: last responded on 5, April 2022 at 16:55 (UTC)
  • Todd Libby: last responded on 6, April 2022 at 01:21 (UTC)
  • Jonathan Avila: last responded on 15, April 2022 at 18:31 (UTC)
  • Mike Pluke: last responded on 18, April 2022 at 16:56 (UTC)
  • Melanie Philipp: last responded on 18, April 2022 at 22:52 (UTC)
  • Wilco Fiers: last responded on 19, April 2022 at 09:39 (UTC)
  • Gundula Niemann: last responded on 19, April 2022 at 12:21 (UTC)
  • Rachael Bradley Montgomery: last responded on 19, April 2022 at 13:06 (UTC)
  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 19, April 2022 at 13:33 (UTC)
  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 19, April 2022 at 14:20 (UTC)
  • Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 19, April 2022 at 14:34 (UTC)
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra: last responded on 19, April 2022 at 14:35 (UTC)
  • Andrew Kirkpatrick: last responded on 19, April 2022 at 14:47 (UTC)
  • Michael Gower: last responded on 19, April 2022 at 15:02 (UTC)
  • Kim Dirks: last responded on 19, April 2022 at 15:08 (UTC)
  • John Foliot: last responded on 19, April 2022 at 17:56 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

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

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.