W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Adding Protocols as exploratory content

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2022-07-01 to 2022-07-11.

16 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Editor's Note
  2. Preferred starting point
  3. Writing protocols
  4. Characteristics of a protocol
  5. Future conformance
  6. Controls
  7. Timing

1. Editor's Note

The current editor's note that would be posted with the protocols content includes the following items. As a reminder, the editor's note is intended to capture questions, challenges, and other points that need to be addressed as exploratory content increases in stages of maturity. This list is independent of any particular proposal.

What changes or additions would you like to see?

  • Once the conformance model is developed, how will protocols fit into it?
  • How do we address the range of potential ways that the protocol approach could be mis-used as assertions of conformance?
    • This is tied to the concern that organizations can write their own protocols
    • It has also been raised in using a public statement as proof that an organization adhered to a protocol
  • What is the right level of granularity for a protocol?
  • Is the intent of protocols to reference documents that include requirements that can be tested with high inter-rater reliability along with those that cannot?
  • Can checkpoints in a protocol duplicate tests in other parts of the guidelines? If so, how will those be handled?
  • How will protocols fit into conformance?
  • If public assertions are required, will this lead to companies being held legally accountable and as a result discourage adoption?
  • Is there a difference between assertions and publishing results of an evaluation?
  • Do we timestamp the declarations? Does a protocol expire?
  • If an assertion is used:
    • How is it linked?
    • What is the format of that asserstion/statement? (EARL?)
    • What is in the assertion/statement?
  • How do we ensure a protocol solves real problems?
  • What level of testing should be required for minimal conformance?
  • Do protocols exist outside of conformance?
  • Can they be used not for a claim of conformance, but an internal benchmark, for example?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results

Details

Responder Editor's Note
John Foliot
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Jennifer Strickland There's a use of headings and labels as the example. This may need to be changed. My sub-group, previously known as Headings, now Structured Content, is in the middle of working on WCAG 3 outcomes, etc., and my partner has been working on a draft for about a year now. While Headings was seen as something that is solid and taken for granted my partner found issues with the draft provided so TBD what the guideline content will look like. Is there anything else that is actually stable?

Something I like about Protocols is that the W3C does seem to have a shortage of volunteers and this allows organizations to contribute ideas that could become incorporated — although I wonder how the W3C will discover organizations' protocols, how WCAG could adopt them in the future if those orgs are not W3C members. Just some questions that might arise.
Todd Libby
Shawn Lauriat
Rain Breaw Michaels I'm having a really difficult time know what I'm meant to respond to in this question.

Having read these documents, though, I'm not sure that Making Content Usable should be considered a protocol since it has a combination of things that we can and should make testable, as well as things that maybe cannot become actual tests/specifications. It is also too big and diverse in its guidance to be a protocol. I would think that protocols would be more tightly scoped and not include things that should really be part of the testable specifications. For example, "ways to provide access to help" might be a candidate for a protocol, while all of Making Content Usable is too much.

What are the next steps and meaningful, straightforward ways we can contribute/help?
Gundula Niemann In either proposal, explain clearly what is meant by protocol or even find a different term.
The term 'protocol' is widely used for different terms, like communication protocol like TCP/IP or UDP.
It can also be used for the set of interfaces to be supported.Or for the way how to behave in front of the English Queeen.
Michael Cooper
Jeanne F Spellman Recommend:
How do we address the range of potential ways that the protocol approach could be mis-used to claim accessibility?

That organizations can write their own protocols following requirements set out in WCAG3 Outcomes.
That organizations make a public statement as proof that an organization adhered to a protocol.
Michael Gower > Is the intent of protocols to reference documents that include requirements that can be tested with high inter-rater reliability along with those that cannot?
Yes, I think so.

>How is it linked? What is the format of that asserstion/statement? (EARL?)
These seem like implementation details that can be resolved once the overall approach and scope is defined. I don't think we need to get into that yet.

>How do we ensure a protocol solves real problems?
I'm not sure the AGWG has to. It depends a lot on what the protocols are built on -- what research, etc., and what the desired result is. It's entirely possible, under different scenarios (different use cases, different core user groups, etc) for the benefit/efficacy of any protocol to be judged completely differently.

> Can they be used not for a claim of conformance, but an internal benchmark, for example?
There are so many ways people may seek to claim benefit for people with disabilities beyond WCAG measures. Just think of many sites' best practices documentation. Little of this is offered to 'pass' or 'meet' WCAG. It is written and followed to improve user experience. We only need to think about design principles and practices, which have all developed not within standards area like WCAG, but within user-centered principles and philosophy.
Gregg Vanderheiden - what measures do we have in place to keep an organization from 'gaming' these
- how do we test that the assertions are real
Makoto Ueki - Is it possible to localize it into different languages?

WCAG is the international guideline. If it will be English-based, the instructions for localizations must be provided so that different countries/languages could adopt WCAG.
Laura Carlson
Mary Jo Mueller Eliminate either “Once the conformance model is developed, how will protocols fit into it?” or “How will protocols fit into conformance?” which ask the same question. Consider eliminating any conformance-related questions for now since conformance hasn’t yet been defined for WCAG 3.

Questions use different terms that I thought were synonyms, but seem to imply they are not. E.g “public assertions” vs. “assertions” vs. “declarations”.

General comments: There seem to be too many questions over too broad of a range of topics for this early on – very overwhelming. Some should be reserved until one or two exemplars of protocols are developed. Suggest focusing the questions on a small number of major topics that will help with rapid development of more detailed info for what a protocol is (and what it is not), how it might be used, and what a good protocol includes.

For example, there could be a group of questions that focus on what might be considered essential parts of a protocol.
- Do protocols include processes, procedures, best practices, tools to use for implementation?
- Do protocols include “checkpoints” or simply procedures for evaluating results of following the protocol?
- What are the preferred methods of documenting results? Should these documentation methods be required or recommended?

Wilco Fiers From what has been provided so far, I did not feel well enough equipped to answer any of these questions. I feel the groups have gone into so much detail already that it is hard to say where to go next. I feel like it might be better to take a few steps back and come up with a more high-level proposal. Introduce the general idea as exploratory, without all the details currently attached to it.
Bruce Bailey

2. Preferred starting point

After reviewing the proposals, how would you like to proceed?

This question will inform the draft exploratory content that is brought to the AGWG for review. A future survey will vote on adding draft content as exploratory.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Add both proposals as exploratory 5
Add the Protocols and Assertions proposal as exploratory 2
Add the Evaluating Procedures proposal 1
Add exploratory content using ideas from each of the proposals (The next questions provide an opportunity to indicate preference for specific ideas) 6

Details

Responder Preferred starting pointComments
John Foliot Add the Protocols and Assertions proposal as exploratory
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Add exploratory content using ideas from each of the proposals (The next questions provide an opportunity to indicate preference for specific ideas)
Jennifer Strickland Add both proposals as exploratory
Todd Libby Add the Protocols and Assertions proposal as exploratory
Shawn Lauriat Add both proposals as exploratory The two proposals solve very different problems and have unrelated mechanisms, both of which seem valuable to explore in more detail.
Rain Breaw Michaels Add exploratory content using ideas from each of the proposals (The next questions provide an opportunity to indicate preference for specific ideas)
Gundula Niemann Add both proposals as exploratory
Michael Cooper Add the Evaluating Procedures proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Add exploratory content using ideas from each of the proposals (The next questions provide an opportunity to indicate preference for specific ideas)
Michael Gower Add exploratory content using ideas from each of the proposals (The next questions provide an opportunity to indicate preference for specific ideas)
Gregg Vanderheiden there is not enough information here to understand this - other than at an aspirational level.
Needed are
- examples (lots of them - at least enough to cover the range of topics)
- examples of how they are scored and how the scores are used
- discussion of how to meet the all important question of "Will points equate to actual impact"
Makoto Ueki Add exploratory content using ideas from each of the proposals (The next questions provide an opportunity to indicate preference for specific ideas)
Laura Carlson Add both proposals as exploratory
Mary Jo Mueller Add exploratory content using ideas from each of the proposals (The next questions provide an opportunity to indicate preference for specific ideas)
Wilco Fiers
Bruce Bailey Add both proposals as exploratory

3. Writing protocols

Who should write a protocol?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Subject domain experts write protocols and submit them for AGWG approval prior to use. 4
AGWG defines requirements that protocols must meet in order to be used. 4
Something else (Details in comments) 7

Details

Responder Writing protocolsComments
John Foliot Subject domain experts write protocols and submit them for AGWG approval prior to use.
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Something else (Details in comments) I think AG should approve and maintain a list of approved protocols but I can see situations such as Usability testing where the approved protocol may be more like a structured set of requirements that would be used to create a more detailed protocol.
Jennifer Strickland AGWG defines requirements that protocols must meet in order to be used. AGWG already has too few volunteers for there to be an approval process. Meeting WCAG is already a confusing experience for many users, so to add a submission process that will likely take AGWG a long time to get to will only make the public impression of WCAG more cumbersome.
Todd Libby Subject domain experts write protocols and submit them for AGWG approval prior to use.
Shawn Lauriat Something else (Details in comments) We should first get the mechanisms and details sorted out before we try to establish this aspect of responsibility.
Rain Breaw Michaels Something else (Details in comments) I wish a "both" option were available. It seems that in order for subject domain experts to be able to write meaningful protocols, they need a defined set of requirements from AGWG to guide them. At the same time, it makes sense for subject domain experts to be the authors of the protocols.

Additionally, there should be intersectional domain representatives who are part of drafting protocols, since accessibility requirements are not necessarily always in neat and separated packages.
Gundula Niemann Something else (Details in comments) Any review by AGWG for all companies worldwide will not scale.
Michael Cooper Something else (Details in comments) I think both options are valid. No matter who writes them, AG WG will have to define requirements for protocols in order to have something that can work with the established conformance model. The requirements could include a level of expertise, research, or review required to write a conforming protocol. In that case we should have a reasonable confidence in protocols we didn't write ourselves.
Jeanne F Spellman AGWG defines requirements that protocols must meet in order to be used.
Michael Gower Something else (Details in comments) I think both of the first options can take place. But I anticipate many more specific use cases within locations/jurisdictions, industry, user groups, etc., than could ever be fulfilled or curated by the AGWG.
Just focusing on localization for a moment, I believe I just saw an announcment that the W3C has released a French language version of WCAG 2.1. How long will it take for the AGWG to vet language style guides for every language (assuming an ideal world where only one style guide for language existed).

Gregg Vanderheiden Subject domain experts write protocols and submit them for AGWG approval prior to use. - the AGWG needs to maintain quality control of this *especially* since it is new and untried and we don't know all the ways it could go astray.
Makoto Ueki Something else (Details in comments) Both. 1) AGWG must define the requirements for the protocols, 2) Subject domain experts write protocols and submit them and 3) AGWG will review and approve them.
Laura Carlson Subject domain experts write protocols and submit them for AGWG approval prior to use.
Mary Jo Mueller AGWG defines requirements that protocols must meet in order to be used. I think the AG WG has enough work to do to keep up with current technology, make improvements to the standard, develop techniques and ACT Rules, etc. I don't think it is the position of the W3C-WAI to approve every web developer's protocol for every SC. AG WG doesn't approve every test process or implementation, and protocols seem to fall into a similar category.
Wilco Fiers
Bruce Bailey AGWG defines requirements that protocols must meet in order to be used. AGWG might write/develop some model protocols, but "AGWG approval prior to use" seems problematic.

4. Characteristics of a protocol

Protocols are used when the results can’t be tested with high inter-rater reliability. What additional characteristics define what is accepted as a protocol?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Protocols contain an articulated outcome, key expectations, and user stories or equivalent examples. 3
The protocol meets specific outcome-level requirements, which will be outlined in WCAG 3 for each outcome that allows the use of protocols. 2
Both 8
Something else (Details in comments) 1

Details

Responder Characteristics of a protocolComments
John Foliot Protocols contain an articulated outcome, key expectations, and user stories or equivalent examples.
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Both I do not see these as mutually exclusive and both have value
Jennifer Strickland Both
Todd Libby Both
Shawn Lauriat Protocols contain an articulated outcome, key expectations, and user stories or equivalent examples. For the second option of this question, I don't think I understand what it proposes, so examples would help me to form an opinion about it.
Rain Breaw Michaels Both
Gundula Niemann
Michael Cooper The protocol meets specific outcome-level requirements, which will be outlined in WCAG 3 for each outcome that allows the use of protocols.
Jeanne F Spellman The protocol meets specific outcome-level requirements, which will be outlined in WCAG 3 for each outcome that allows the use of protocols.
Michael Gower Both I don't think a protocol would need ALL these things to qualify as a protocol.
I also feel like the above is missing a procedural element which seems to me to be a core part of many protocols: do this, at this time.
Gregg Vanderheiden Both
Makoto Ueki Both
Laura Carlson Protocols contain an articulated outcome, key expectations, and user stories or equivalent examples.
Mary Jo Mueller Something else (Details in comments) The protocols should have a template to follow for essential parts. This could be a process or best practices used by design, development and/or test in support of desired end user accessibility outcomes in the content.
Wilco Fiers
Bruce Bailey Both

5. Future conformance

Conformance has not yet been defined so this topic requires future exploration. How may protocols fit into conformance in the future?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Users earn points by adopting vetted protocols increasing their final conformance score. 2
Protocols describe inputs for procedures but do not necessarily measure outcomes. The protocol must define a way to evaluate the quality of its implementation. This is expected to correlate to conformance with a WCAG 3 outcome. 3
Something else (Details in comments) 9

Details

Responder Future conformanceComments
John Foliot Users earn points by adopting vetted protocols increasing their final conformance score.
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Something else (Details in comments) I would prefer specify this after we better understand where we are going with conformance.
Jennifer Strickland Something else (Details in comments) Protocols are not part of a baseline passing conformance score — so they cannot be "gamed" to pass. Alternatively, protocols are a required part of a baseline conformance score — as in, users must document some steps used to evaluate the subjective WCAG3 criteria.
Todd Libby Something else (Details in comments) Wait until Conformance is defined so that we can determine the answer to "how many protocols fit into conformance in the future".
Shawn Lauriat Something else (Details in comments) Too early to establish this, we should focus on the mechanisms and then revisit how this fits into conformance as we figure out conformance itself.
Rain Breaw Michaels Protocols describe inputs for procedures but do not necessarily measure outcomes. The protocol must define a way to evaluate the quality of its implementation. This is expected to correlate to conformance with a WCAG 3 outcome.
Gundula Niemann
Michael Cooper Protocols describe inputs for procedures but do not necessarily measure outcomes. The protocol must define a way to evaluate the quality of its implementation. This is expected to correlate to conformance with a WCAG 3 outcome.
Jeanne F Spellman Protocols describe inputs for procedures but do not necessarily measure outcomes. The protocol must define a way to evaluate the quality of its implementation. This is expected to correlate to conformance with a WCAG 3 outcome. AGWG doesn't have the bandwidth to vet protocols.
Michael Gower Something else (Details in comments) In the same way that SCs are genearlly written first and afterward assigned a level (based on how the SC matures), I think the manner in which any protocol would be assessed could vary. It's also not entirely clear to me at this point whether scoring will exist in the form first pictured.
But let me elaborate on a possible parallel path: at the moment the ITI template allows someone to report a site or application against many critiera. Some protocols could potentially be just another list of outcomes against which someone reports. Groups that have an interest in assessing the maturity and overall user experience could adopt their own scale for how they value things. RFIs could requirement a baseline level (including a set of w3c protocols that must be followed), and then ask groups to identify which additional features they provide based on a list of protocols (or equivalents),
Gregg Vanderheiden Something else (Details in comments) Earn points to increase their RATING or SCORE. Increasing conformance sounds discordant. I have trouble with conforming as a variable. You either conform to a standard (or a level of a standard) or you don't. I'm not frozen on this - but I still have not heard a scoring proposal that doesnt have the problems that the scoring proposals we advanced in the early 2000's had - that caused us to finally give up on scoring as an approach. it sounded good to us to -- but we could never make it work.
Makoto Ueki Something else (Details in comments) It is too early to discuss this at this phase. We need to get to more concrete and specific guidelines/outcomes/conformance scheme at first. And then we can revisit this question.
Laura Carlson Users earn points by adopting vetted protocols increasing their final conformance score.
Mary Jo Mueller Something else (Details in comments) Difficult to tell before we have any protocols to look at. If you look at the plain language protocol from the U.S. Govt. it's a good resource with great advice, but it is still difficult to provide some definitive way to score or measure against the WCAG requirement's outcome. If a protocol is a new method to try to measure "perfection" in following it and "perfection" in the protocols themselves, I fear that adding them will only increase the frustration in trying to meet WCAG requirements.
Wilco Fiers
Bruce Bailey Something else (Details in comments) I am not yet convinced these are not compatible. Obviously, WCAG3 needs different name/term for the approaches.

6. Controls

How stringent are the controls?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Content creators make a programmatically linked declarative statement commiting to adopt a protocol. The statement will note steps that taken to meet the protocol. Content creators make a declarative statement of progress. 2
The protocol can only be used for a subset of outcomes that must meet W3C criteria, and must be able to be evaluated in order to be used for conformance. Protocols used to support conformance claims must be publicly documented. 2
Something else (Details in comments) 9

Details

Responder ControlsComments
John Foliot Content creators make a programmatically linked declarative statement commiting to adopt a protocol. The statement will note steps that taken to meet the protocol. Content creators make a declarative statement of progress.
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Something else (Details in comments) I am unsure of the difference here. I support public documentation through some form or programmatically linked statement.
Jennifer Strickland Something else (Details in comments) Neither of the above options seem viable for uses. Could AGWG attempt to survey the user audience to uncover what users would be able / willing to do?
Todd Libby Content creators make a programmatically linked declarative statement commiting to adopt a protocol. The statement will note steps that taken to meet the protocol. Content creators make a declarative statement of progress.
Shawn Lauriat Something else (Details in comments) Too early to establish this, we should focus on the mechanisms and then revisit how this fits into conformance as we figure out conformance itself.
Rain Breaw Michaels The protocol can only be used for a subset of outcomes that must meet W3C criteria, and must be able to be evaluated in order to be used for conformance. Protocols used to support conformance claims must be publicly documented.
Gundula Niemann
Michael Cooper Something else (Details in comments) Protocols used as part of a conformance claim must be publicly documented, allowing for vetting. The organization indicates in the public conformance claim that it is using the protocol as part of its conformance efforts, and may do so sooner to show effort prior to achieving WCAG 3 conformance. The question of whether the protocol needs to be programmatically linked should be moved to the discussion about how conformance claims are expressed.

I'm not sure how tightly we should control where protocols can be used. I can imagine deciding that some outcomes are "protocol outcomes" instead of "method outcomes", but I think that misses a lot of gray areas. I'd like to see some prototype protocols, and a collection of outcomes that we think need protocols, before we make too many decision about how these should inter-relate.

When organizations are not making formal WCAG conformance claims, we have no way to enforce any of this. Most orgs will take on protocols in good faith, and we should allow protocols to be useful when conformance claims are not being made.
Jeanne F Spellman The protocol can only be used for a subset of outcomes that must meet W3C criteria, and must be able to be evaluated in order to be used for conformance. Protocols used to support conformance claims must be publicly documented. There are no consequences to declaring a protocol and not meeting it, except a lawsuit. If the protocol is used to gain points to claim minimum conformance, there is a high incentive to cheat.
Michael Gower Something else (Details in comments) There is an important balance here between effort to prove and track, versus effort to actually improve the content. The heavier documentation lift there is, the less likely teams will adopt.
Gregg Vanderheiden Something else (Details in comments) you had AGWG approval before but I don't see it here

I think you need both of the above as well.
Makoto Ueki Something else (Details in comments) This is also too early. Both will be needed.
Laura Carlson Not sure.
Mary Jo Mueller Something else (Details in comments) Putting strict and detailed controls around documentation of using a protocol will make this very cumbersome. I thought one of the goals of having protocols to be able to require and include some of the less easily implementable and testable criteria and encourage adoption. The heaver weight this whole process is, the less likely teams will be able to step up to accomplish it.
Wilco Fiers
Bruce Bailey Something else (Details in comments) To be determined, IMHO.

7. Timing

When is the protocol applied?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Protocols and assertions qualifies principles and outcomes. Protocols and Assertions leaves the solution to the contextual need of the entity who adopts the Protocol. The goal here is to get vetted, “educational” content in front of dev teams at the earliest stages - before any content is created. 3
Orgs adopt protocols as part of developing their WCAG 3 conformance plan and execution. Evaluation of how well the protocol was followed is done when evaluation towards a conformance claim is done, or at other times as part of the organization’s Quality Assurance (QA) process. 5
Something else (Details in comments) 5

Details

Responder TimingComments
John Foliot Protocols and assertions qualifies principles and outcomes. Protocols and Assertions leaves the solution to the contextual need of the entity who adopts the Protocol. The goal here is to get vetted, “educational” content in front of dev teams at the earliest stages - before any content is created.
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Something else (Details in comments) I agree with getting protocols in front of dev teams early. I think that is true of all parts of the standards but many protocols will be significantly more effective when adopted early. If we emphasize that, I am not sure how we would enforce that or handle situations where the protocol is adopted mid process or later on as a remediation. I think final evaluation would be during the conformance claim and that some evaluation of how well the org follows the protocol is needed.
Jennifer Strickland Something else (Details in comments) Neither of the above options seem viable for uses. Could AGWG attempt to survey the user audience to uncover what users would be able / willing to do?
Todd Libby Protocols and assertions qualifies principles and outcomes. Protocols and Assertions leaves the solution to the contextual need of the entity who adopts the Protocol. The goal here is to get vetted, “educational” content in front of dev teams at the earliest stages - before any content is created.
Shawn Lauriat Something else (Details in comments) This seems like something we should write up afterward as a part of something like updated WCAG-EM documentation.
Rain Breaw Michaels Something else (Details in comments) I'm having difficulty understanding the options above, but am very in favor of this statement: "The goal here is to get vetted, “educational” content in front of dev teams at the earliest stages - before any content is created."
Gundula Niemann
Michael Cooper Orgs adopt protocols as part of developing their WCAG 3 conformance plan and execution. Evaluation of how well the protocol was followed is done when evaluation towards a conformance claim is done, or at other times as part of the organization’s Quality Assurance (QA) process.
Jeanne F Spellman Orgs adopt protocols as part of developing their WCAG 3 conformance plan and execution. Evaluation of how well the protocol was followed is done when evaluation towards a conformance claim is done, or at other times as part of the organization’s Quality Assurance (QA) process. Getting educational content in front of dev teams is a good goal, but it should not be tied to conformance, which is a measure of what is done. This belongs elsewhere with a different incentive than conformance score.
Michael Gower Orgs adopt protocols as part of developing their WCAG 3 conformance plan and execution. Evaluation of how well the protocol was followed is done when evaluation towards a conformance claim is done, or at other times as part of the organization’s Quality Assurance (QA) process. I don't see these as diametrically opposed scenarios.
Gregg Vanderheiden Protocols and assertions qualifies principles and outcomes. Protocols and Assertions leaves the solution to the contextual need of the entity who adopts the Protocol. The goal here is to get vetted, “educational” content in front of dev teams at the earliest stages - before any content is created.
Makoto Ueki Orgs adopt protocols as part of developing their WCAG 3 conformance plan and execution. Evaluation of how well the protocol was followed is done when evaluation towards a conformance claim is done, or at other times as part of the organization’s Quality Assurance (QA) process.
Laura Carlson Not sure.
Mary Jo Mueller Something else (Details in comments) I think the timing is dependent on what the protocol is/how it is used. For example, if it is for developing understandable textual information (good alt text, plain language, etc.) the protocol could be used at time of development - giving guidance on steps to develop and steps to check the content. If I look at the example of the U.S. government's plain language information, there is part of it that descries steps to take for development (which would occur earlier in the dev process) and steps to take to test that the objectives of the requirement (to have content in plain language) that would need to occur after implementation.
Wilco Fiers
Bruce Bailey Orgs adopt protocols as part of developing their WCAG 3 conformance plan and execution. Evaluation of how well the protocol was followed is done when evaluation towards a conformance claim is done, or at other times as part of the organization’s Quality Assurance (QA) process.

More details on responses

  • John Foliot: last responded on 8, July 2022 at 11:31 (UTC)
  • Rachael Bradley Montgomery: last responded on 8, July 2022 at 12:42 (UTC)
  • Jennifer Strickland: last responded on 8, July 2022 at 13:34 (UTC)
  • Todd Libby: last responded on 8, July 2022 at 13:45 (UTC)
  • Shawn Lauriat: last responded on 8, July 2022 at 16:07 (UTC)
  • Rain Breaw Michaels: last responded on 8, July 2022 at 18:58 (UTC)
  • Gundula Niemann: last responded on 11, July 2022 at 12:44 (UTC)
  • Michael Cooper: last responded on 11, July 2022 at 19:05 (UTC)
  • Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 11, July 2022 at 20:43 (UTC)
  • Michael Gower: last responded on 11, July 2022 at 21:00 (UTC)
  • Gregg Vanderheiden: last responded on 12, July 2022 at 07:18 (UTC)
  • Makoto Ueki: last responded on 12, July 2022 at 12:28 (UTC)
  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 12, July 2022 at 12:55 (UTC)
  • Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 12, July 2022 at 13:05 (UTC)
  • Wilco Fiers: last responded on 12, July 2022 at 13:57 (UTC)
  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 12, July 2022 at 14:07 (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. David MacDonald
  11. Gez Lemon
  12. Peter Korn
  13. Preety Kumar
  14. Georgios Grigoriadis
  15. Stefan Schnabel
  16. Romain Deltour
  17. Chris Blouch
  18. Jedi Lin
  19. Kimberly Patch
  20. Glenda Sims
  21. Ian Pouncey
  22. Alastair Campbell
  23. Léonie Watson
  24. David Sloan
  25. John Kirkwood
  26. Detlev Fischer
  27. Reinaldo Ferraz
  28. Matt Garrish
  29. Mike Gifford
  30. Loïc Martínez Normand
  31. Mike Pluke
  32. Justine Pascalides
  33. Chris Loiselle
  34. Tzviya Siegman
  35. Jan McSorley
  36. Sailesh Panchang
  37. Cristina Mussinelli
  38. Jonathan Avila
  39. John Rochford
  40. Sarah Horton
  41. Sujasree Kurapati
  42. Jatin Vaishnav
  43. Sam Ogami
  44. Kevin White
  45. E.A. Draffan
  46. Paul Bohman
  47. JaEun Jemma Ku
  48. 骅 杨
  49. Victoria Clark
  50. Avneesh Singh
  51. Mitchell Evan
  52. biao liu
  53. Scott McCormack
  54. Denis Boudreau
  55. Francis Storr
  56. Rick Johnson
  57. David Swallow
  58. Aparna Pasi
  59. Gregorio Pellegrino
  60. Melanie Philipp
  61. Jake Abma
  62. Nicole Windmann
  63. Oliver Keim
  64. Ruoxi Ran
  65. Richard Boardman
  66. Wendy Reid
  67. Scott O'Hara
  68. Charles Adams
  69. Muhammad Saleem
  70. Amani Ali
  71. Trevor Bostic
  72. Jamie Herrera
  73. Shinya Takami
  74. Karen Herr
  75. Kathy Eng
  76. Cybele Sack
  77. Audrey Maniez
  78. Jennifer Delisi
  79. Arthur Soroken
  80. Daniel Bjorge
  81. Kai Recke
  82. David Fazio
  83. Daniel Montalvo
  84. Mario Chacón-Rivas
  85. Michael Gilbert
  86. Caryn Pagel
  87. Achraf Othman
  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. 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. Breixo Pastoriza Barcia
  113. Olivia Hogan-Stark
  114. Rashmi Katakwar
  115. Julie Rawe
  116. Duff Johnson
  117. Laura Miller
  118. Will Creedle
  119. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  120. Marie Csanady
  121. Meenakshi Das
  122. Perrin Anto
  123. Stephanie Louraine
  124. Rachele DiTullio
  125. Jan Jaap de Groot
  126. Rebecca Monteleone
  127. Ian Kersey
  128. Peter Bossley
  129. Anastasia Lanz
  130. Michael Keane
  131. Chiara De Martin
  132. Giacomo Petri
  133. Andrew Barakat
  134. Devanshu Chandra
  135. Helen Zhou
  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. Daniel Henderson-Ede
  174. George Kuan
  175. YAPING LIN
  176. Justin Wilson
  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. Nat Tarnoff
  209. Filippo Zorzi

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.