W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Silver FPWD Candidate

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2020-09-10 to 2020-09-15.

22 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Revised MVP
  2. What do we call non-normative?
  3. Survey Overview
  4. Introduction
  5. Structure of these guidelines
  6. Normative requirements
  7. Guidelines (Not linked content)
  8. Evaluation
  9. Conformance
  10. Glossary
  11. Structured Content How To and Method

1. Revised MVP

AGWG approved the WCAG3 FPWD - MVP at the April 28th meeting. The MVP currenty asks for "Six guidelines that are complete, including all tabs." The editors are requesting a modification to this criteria to be 1 guideline complete including all tabs and 4 additional guidelines complete except for the how to content."

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Modify the MVP 17
Do not modify the MVP 2
Other (Include in comments field 3

Details

Responder Revised MVPComments
Shawn Lawton Henry Modify the MVP
Detlev Fischer Other (Include in comments field I would not reduce the requirements on guidelines completed, I would instead shift the emphasis of presenting the normative core more clearly.
If outcomes are going to be the normative core, these are most important. Other tabs (how to, methods etc.,) and even the guideline level seem secondary. So the MVP should demonstrate how the set of outcomes works across different types and aspects of content (that relate to different user requirements), based on a larger set of DRAFT outcomes. They don't need to be anything near final but with the examples so far I don't get a sense how the structure is going to work overall.
Peter Korn Modify the MVP
Jeanne F Spellman Modify the MVP Better to have five good answers than 5 good and 1 that is controversial because it is incomplete. To answer Detlev, we need to publish some Methods so people can see how the scoring works. The outcomes are scored by Methods. It's an integral part of the conformance process, so people need to see full examples. In my opinion, giving a full set of draft outcomes (that are not well thought through) will distract people from the conformance model.
Glenda Sims Other (Include in comments field I'm okay with revising the MVP, but going from "Six guidelines that are complete, including all tabs" to 1 guideline all tabs does not give the public enough context and is not acceptable as a FPWD.
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Modify the MVP I believe 5 examples covers enough situations and provides enough variety to be sufficient for a FPWD.
Laura Carlson Modify the MVP
Chris Loiselle Modify the MVP
Justine Pascalides Do not modify the MVP Modifying the MVP would make it difficult for the public or non-members to understand the content.
Wilco Fiers Modify the MVP
Sarah Horton Modify the MVP I support focusing on completing all aspects of a guideline, iterating, and refining, and using what we learn to work though the remaining guidelines. One side note: the references to "tabs" is confusing — I believe it refers to the presentation of the content in a tabpanel component? It would be clearer to reference to content itself, so rather than "all tabs", describe the content that must be provided to complete a guideline (how-tos, methods, etc). That will also help us keep track of scope and what's needed.
Jake Abma Modify the MVP 5 instead of 6 guidelines is fine, but I also read the Methods will be 'some' methods. This is NOT complete and will make the scoring probably not realistic but indicative and changes would probably needed afterwards. But this is of course a draft so that would be fine.

"Complete" is not complete and should be removed from the text though.

Janina Sajka Modify the MVP
Bruce Bailey Modify the MVP
Oliver Keim Modify the MVP
Nicaise Dogbo Modify the MVP
Grady Thompson Modify the MVP
Andrew Kirkpatrick Do not modify the MVP
Michael Gower Other (Include in comments field I need better context. According to the status document, Headings, Visual Contrast of Text, and Clear language all have completed How To content. Why would they be excepted?
It also seems like a big reduction in MVP to go from six (4 migrated, 2 new) to one. If scope needs to be reduced, why not three (2 migrated, 1 new)?
Gundula Niemann Modify the MVP
Stefan Schnabel Modify the MVP
Matt Garrish Modify the MVP

2. What do we call non-normative?

We received several comments that the term "non-normative" is unclear. The term is used as part of the automatic document generation so it is commonly used across W3C specifications. Please consider what the best option is to call this type of content.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Continue using "This section is non-normative." 4
Change to "This section is not normative."
Change to "This section is informative." 2
Change to "This section is informative (non-normative)." 6
Change to "This section is advisory only. It does not specify guidelines." 5
Other (add to comments) 4

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

Details

Responder What do we call non-normative?Comments
Shawn Lawton Henry Other (add to comments) "This section is informative (not normative)."
and maybe on first use in the document:
"This section is informative advice. It does not set normative requirements."

(/me finds "WCAG2ICT is a W3C Working Group Note that is informative — it is not normative and does not set requirements." in https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/non-web-ict/ )
Detlev Fischer Other (add to comments) I don't care.
Peter Korn Change to "This section is informative (non-normative)." I don't feel strongly on my choice, but I do think that more verbose text is better.
Jeanne F Spellman Change to "This section is advisory only. It does not specify guidelines." Plain language, please. Although it could drop the second sentence. I am well read with an excellent vocabulary. I had never heard of the word "normative" until I worked for W3C. It is the kind of technical jargon that leads people dismiss the Guidelines because they don't understand them. I also recommend changing normative to "Required (normative)"'.
Glenda Sims Change to "This section is informative (non-normative)."
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Change to "This section is informative (non-normative)."
Laura Carlson Change to "This section is advisory only. It does not specify guidelines." Since we are going for plain language in WCAG 3.0, I would prefer "This section is advisory only. It does not specify guidelines."

I have had university students in my classes that the confuse the use of the term "non-normative" to mean "non-standard" and "below standard". It takes some explaining before they understand.

I can live with, "This section is informative (non-normative)."
Chris Loiselle Change to "This section is advisory only. It does not specify guidelines."
Justine Pascalides Change to "This section is advisory only. It does not specify guidelines." The plain language of this comment is ideal. Add in parentheses after "advisory only" ("non-normative") for people who are accustomed to that terminology. Confirm that this phrase would be used consistently throughout WCAG 3.0.
Wilco Fiers Change to "This section is informative (non-normative)."
Sarah Horton Change to "This section is informative (non-normative)." While we're on the topic, normative and guidelines are also confusing. "Requirements" is a common term used to describe specifications, and everything that is not a requirement is informational.
Jake Abma Change to "This section is informative (non-normative)." about: "This section is advisory only. It does not specify guidelines." => this seems a bit strange as the guideline itself is informative, only the outcomes are normative! (so the advisory section includes the guidelines)

Also, in the way people talk about 'guidelines' in general is that they are advise on how to do something in an acceptable / proper way.
Janina Sajka Continue using "This section is non-normative." I think this is a question arising from confusion over who our audience is. If we're adjusting
language to suit an educational purpose, then I suggest we clarify meaning in a footnote or parallel document.
It's not that the suggested alternatives are bad. It's simply a question of going "off standard" on our own is probably inadvisable, i.e. this is a question above our level.
Bruce Bailey Change to "This section is informative." I like Shawn Henry's proposal best. Other than the first choice, the others are fine with me.
Oliver Keim Change to "This section is informative."
Nicaise Dogbo
Grady Thompson Change to "This section is advisory only. It does not specify guidelines." plain language
Andrew Kirkpatrick Continue using "This section is non-normative." At one point I agreed that this was confusing. But then I learned the definition of normative and it's been straightforward since then.
Michael Gower Other (add to comments) Continue to use non-normative, but add a hyperlink to the Simplified Summary (and rewrite the summary to make it even simpler, since it is in some ways longer and less clear than the paragraph that follows it).
Gundula Niemann Other (add to comments) I tend to keep the term non-normative. It may be explained in the glossary.
Reasons: To me it sounds better that "not normative", all content is informative (at least that is our goal), and 'guidelines' is not a term generally understood as normative, but as "a guidance". So the last suggestion might lead to even moe confusion.
Stefan Schnabel Continue using "This section is non-normative."
Matt Garrish Continue using "This section is non-normative." Another option might be to override the respec code that generates the labels and hyperlink "non-normative" to its definition the same way normative appears to be linked in places.

I would be uneasy with changing such a widely used naming convention just in this one case, though.

3. Survey Overview

The current draft of WCAG 3.0 is being prepared for the First Public Working Draft (FPWD).

This survey is to get approval from the Working Group and Silver Task Force to publish the FPWD. We will address sections, How Tos, and Methods individually and then vote in the joint Tuesday meeting to move the section to the CFC process. Only content that is ready to review has a question listed below.

There is still scope for addressing issues, but whilst entering comments please do consider whether:

  • It is a minor thing that could still go out for public review if it is not changed;
  • It could be included in an editors note to encourage feedback from the public on that point.
  • It must be changed before going out for public review (i.e. you object to releasing without a change);

Please indicate in your comments which category of issue it is for you. Any answer that indicates there are issues without saying what they are (in the comment) will be ignored.

Details

Responder
Shawn Lawton Henry
Detlev Fischer
Peter Korn
Jeanne F Spellman
Glenda Sims
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Laura Carlson
Chris Loiselle
Justine Pascalides
Wilco Fiers
Sarah Horton
Jake Abma
Janina Sajka
Bruce Bailey
Oliver Keim
Nicaise Dogbo
Grady Thompson
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Michael Gower
Gundula Niemann
Stefan Schnabel
Matt Garrish

4. Introduction

The introduction section of WCAG 3.0 is non-normative, and sets the scene for the document.

Please review and either approve for publishing in the FPWD or comment if there are things you think should be changed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
This section can be published as it is now. 7
This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. 6
This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. 5

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

Details

Responder IntroductionComments
Shawn Lawton Henry
Detlev Fischer
Peter Korn This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. 1. (must fix) The styling for the simplified summary does not make clear visually that the entire boxed text in the aside is the simplified summary, vs. just the 2 sentences immediately under the visual heading "Simplified Summary" and before the visual heading "How is the advice organized?"
2. (must fix) Visual styling for the aside should be matched by structure. "If it looks like a header, it should be a header". These look like headers. They aren't headers. If the W3C cannot follow WCAG 2.x guidelines (or WCAG 3 FPWD guidelines) for its own guidelines document, then we don't have the authority to tell others how to make things accessible.
3. (must fix) Most of the content in the aside is NOT a summary of the rest of what is in Section 1. "Who Benefits?" is there (good). "What did the Silver TF Focus on?" and "How did the focus evolve?" really isn't. They are new material that belongs within the main body of the text [OR in the Status section or Abstract section], not in a simplified summary.
4. (really should fix) Whether in the Introduction, or in Status (which we haven't formally surveyed, and is currently boilerplate), I think it important to include the high level goals of these guidelines. The first two sentences of the Editors Note @ the end of Introduction does this beautifully, and really belongs at the top of Introduction as part of body text (just after a simplified summary). The last sentence of the Editor's note "While the majority of guidelines need to be written, we seek wider public review on the approach presented here." belongs in Status or Abstract I think.
5.(really should fix) In Introduction (and preferably in a Goals section), we should capture that that what we are trying to do with 3.0 is move closer to the lived experience of website visitors with disabilities, rather than just pass/fail guidelines that may not match that lived experience. This was a key facet of the research which should be brought forth in Introduction
6. (really should fix) Whether in Introduction, or Abstract, or Status, it is important to note that in this FPWD, we have only one approach to validating conformance - and more are coming. Conformance was such a critical thing to address coming out of Silver research, to leave mention of this only to an Editor's Note in the Evaluation section (where it is currently) isn't sufficient.
Jeanne F Spellman This section can be published as it is now. We need to update the Simplified Summary because it includes items that have been removed. Hopefully, we will get to it before Tuesday.
Glenda Sims This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. There is conflicting info in the simplified summary (compared to the content in this section outside the summary). Specifically, the simplified summary says, "These guidelines will replace the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2" while the Abstract says, "WCAG 3.0 does not supersede WCAG 2.2 and previous versions". I recommend changing “These guidelines will replace the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2.” to ““WCAG 3.0 will be a better standard than the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2. But WCAG 2.2 will still be a valid standard to use.”
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Laura Carlson This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. Spelling: "Coontent" should be "Content"
Chris Loiselle This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. 1) The phrasing " It presents new methods and tests for making content accessible using existing and more recent technologies." Tests don't make content accessible, they validate the the content is accessible per the methods applied to the content creation.
2) The phrase The WCAG 3.0 guidelines states the "guidelines" twice, once in the acronym and then once in normal text. Recommendation: Remove "guidelines" and state "WCAG 3.0 forms".
3) For those that wish to migrate to the new standard, the Working Group will provide transition support materials, which may use mapping and / or other approaches to facilitate migration. Question: As this is written, will there be a mapping? If not, what other approaches will be introduced other than mapping?
Justine Pascalides This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. The last paragraph before section 1.1 contains the statement " Since the new standard will use a different conformance model, the Working Group expects that some organizations may wish to continue using WCAG 2.x, while others may wish to migrate to the new standard." which directly conflicts with the bullet "Regulatory environment – to support adopting the guidelines into policy and law".

Fix typo in the last paragraph before section 1.1 "Coontent"

I question why the sections "What did the Silver Task Force focus on" and "How did the focus evolve" are included as they would be relevant in the WCAG 3 spec, but could exist in an Understanding or other background documents. They could be extracted into an editor note for now. I think there is a need for an Editorial note regarding Section 1.2, specifically the inclusion of ATAG (a W3C rec) and UAAG (not a rec). The lack of specificity as to what will be included suggests that the two bullet points should be called out in the note as opposed to the body text.

Wilco Fiers This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. UAAG and ATAG are mentioned several times, but there is nothing in the rest of WCAG 3 that takes them into account. If we're not going to include any UAAG / ATAG content in the FPWD, the doc shouldn't say that it does. I think an editor note explaining this is being considered would be more appropriate.

The term "simplified summary" seems a little problematic. Maybe "plain language summary"?

I'm not sure these summaries should be laid out the way they are. They're fairly disruptive in reading the document. Using an explainer might be more appropriate.

Under 1.1 Scope of WCAG 3, the first paragraph seems unnecessary. Links to research should go in an appendix. A description of how WCAG 3 came to be doesn't need to be in the document. That kind of information can live in other places.

The scope section doesn't really describe the scope of WCAG 3. It's more of a goals section, and one specifically contrasted with what is in WCAG 2. This doesn't seem like it'd age well once WCAG 2.x is retired.

1.3, I don't think the requirements for WCAG 3 should be in WCAG 3. Might be worth putting a link to the requirements doc in the "status of this document" section, but it seems odd to have it as a section in the doc.
Sarah Horton This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. Some editorial changes:
Change "limited movement" to "limited movement and dexterity"
Change "as well as accessible to individuals with disabilities" to "as well as accessible to people with disabilities"
Change "They also incorporate content from" to "It also incorporate content from"
Change "the Working Group" to "the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group"
Change "One recurring theme was the popularity and quality of the guidance in WCAG 2.0." to "One recurring theme was positive perceptions about the popularity and quality of the guidance in WCAG 2.0." (not clear whether the theme was that they are unpopular and low quality)
Change "was designed to be technology neutral, and has stayed relevant" to "were designed to be technology neutral, and have stayed relevant"
Change "all persons with disabilities" to "people with disabilities"
Change "work well for people regardless of the disability they live with" to "work well for people regardless of disability"
Change "While the majority of guidelines need to be written," to "While the majority of guidelines are still to be written,"
Jake Abma This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. I do not think we have proven the requirements so far and / or how it will work (the difference / compared to WCAG 2.x):

We should be more clear on the way we are still looking for prove of concept to the requirements.

- Multiple ways to measure
- Flexible maintenance and extensibility
- Multiple ways to display
- Technology Neutral
- Readability/Usability
- Regulatory Environment
Janina Sajka This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. The aside still doesn't play well with a screen reader. I appreciate the H3 headers. But, following the /aside there's still uncategorized paragraphs before headers resume.
Also, we have a grammatical number issue--at least once, maybe more. Is WCAG 3 an "is" or an "are?" We use both grammatical constructions right now, eg.
"WCAG 3.0 is a successor to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2 [[WCAG22]] and previous versions. They also incorporate content from and partially extend ..."
Bruce Bailey This section can be published as it is now.
Oliver Keim This section can be published as it is now.
Nicaise Dogbo This section can be published as it is now.
Grady Thompson
Andrew Kirkpatrick This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. In the introduction there is the sentence "These guidelines will replace the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2." but in the abstract it says "WCAG 3.0 does not supersede WCAG 2.2 and previous versions;" - these seem contradictory.

Without a clear conformance model I'm not sure how the "regulatory environment" requirement can claim to be addressed.
Michael Gower This section can be published as it is now. I have done proofing as I went and have a branch with minor proofing edits, based on the 11_Sept_2020_edits, I can create a PR for, if I am given access to the repo.
Gundula Niemann This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. 1) it says "This includes accommodations for blindness and low vision, ..." This sentence might not strive for completeness, nevertheless I miss something like "other vision impairments" to reflect color vision impairments, floaters, short sightedness, far-sightedness and more, which are also covered in the guidelines. Should be fixed/decided on before publishing.
2) typo at the beginning of the last paragraph: It says 'Coontent'. Should be fixed before publishing.
Stefan Schnabel This section can be published as it is now.
Matt Garrish This section can be published as it is now. The word "Coontent" appears in the paragraphs between the summary and subsection 1.1. To nitpick, it might be helpful to group these paragraphs under an "About WCAG 3.0" heading (or some such) so they are more easily referenced as a distinctsection of content.

5. Structure of these guidelines

The Structure of these guidelines section of WCAG 3.0 is non-normative, and describes the structure of the document.

Please review and either approve for publishing in the FPWD or comment if there are things you think should be changed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
This section can be published as it is now. 7
This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. 9
This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. 2

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

Details

Responder Structure of these guidelinesComments
Shawn Lawton Henry
Detlev Fischer This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. I find the description of the structure still hard to grasp because it mixes the hierarchy of Guideline/Outcome/Method with other things that are tangential or orthogonal to it. Since it seems that the core (normative) bit will be the collection of outcomes (so they have the status that is now with Success Criteria), my suggestion is to flesh out the set of outcomes a lot more, as an ensemble. We do need more than a few to get a feeling how the requirements are distributed to outcomes so that there is not too much overlap. We know this problem today from WCAG 2.0, where there are various overlaps and gaps.
I believe crucial decisions on the overall structure can only be responsibly made if we get down to drafting these outcomes. For example: is an outcome like the quoted "Provides semantic structure that conveys a sense of hierarchy" focused on the area now covered in 1.3.1, 4.1.2 and 2.4.1 or does it also cover visual and cognitive aspects like 2.4.6? Will there be a sibling Outcome like "Ensures headings and descriptions and related content match"? or is this a differentiation on the level of methods? Are other semantic / hierarchical aspects (think data tables, trees, menus etc) covered in other outcomes so we avoid the kitchen sink problem of SC 1.3.1? I believe we have to work bottom up with a larger set of outcomes to get a good sense how the new structure will work best.
Peter Korn This section can be published as it is now.
Jeanne F Spellman This section can be published as it is now. Lots of clarifying editorial changes, a new diagram, examples, and screenshots. The Functional Outcomes have been renamed to "Outcomes" because we had so many terms starting with "Functional". People were getting confused.
Glenda Sims This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. Be nice to fix this typo: "how-tTos" should be "how-tos"
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Laura Carlson This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. I find Figure 1 difficult to read. Please increase contrast or at least ensure passes 1.4.3 and 1.4.11. I'm getting 2.5:1 for the arrows (#a3a3a3 on #ffffff). And 4.2:1 for text such as "informed by EN 301 549 Section 508" (#7c7c7c on #ffffff).

Grammar:
* "a outcome" should be "an outcome"
* "Tags will be applies to guidelines" Should be "Tags will be applied to guidelines"
* "as well information" should be "as well as information"

Spelling:
* "how-tTos" should be "how-tos"
* "interchangable" should be "interchangeable"
* "disabilties" should be "disabilities"
Chris Loiselle This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. 1) The phrase The WCAG 3.0 guidelines states the "guidelines" twice, once in the acronym and then once in normal text.

Recommendation: Remove "guidelines" and state "WCAG 3.0 evolved"

2) On The how is this advice organized? The functional categories area talks to section 508, en 301 549.

Recommendation: A person that is just learning about accessibility may not know what section 508 is, and there should either be a link, or a more detailed explanation of what section 508 is within this sentence structure, same for EN 301.

3) Outcomes are written as: "Outcomes: the desired result (or outcome) of practices that reduce barriers and support ease of use in the designed context. "

Question 1) : Should "practices" be replaced with methods or techniques?

4) The reader may become confused as to what is testable. In reviewing the text describing Outcomes "Outcomes: the desired result (or outcome) of practices that reduce barriers and support ease of use in the designed context. " vs. the text describing Methods : "Methods: detailed techniques and tests for rating how well a outcome for a technology has been met. " and then reading the section 5 content area, "Testing: Outcomes are written as testable criteria."

The Methods glossary term points to a robust explanation of methods which includes: "Tests include step-by-step instructions on evaluating the method based on the technology being used. "

Question 2) : In reading through the current proposed text, Outcomes have tests, Methods have tests and Techniques have tests?

Question 3) : If you don't meet a technique, are you failing that technique or failing that method?

In reviewing "5.1.2: Each outcome includes methods associated with different technologies. Each method contains tests and techniques for satisfying the outcome. The outcome is written so that testers can test the accessibility of new and emerging technologies that do not have related methods based solely on the outcome."

When I read this phrasing, outcomes are testable. You have methods you'd follow to meet the outcome. Each method contains tests for achieving that method, if you miss implementing all of the method, you'd not pass that method fully, thus failing a test associated with that method, which ultimately fails achieving the desired outcome.

Question 4): So, in reporting the failed method, where does that fall in terms of conformance? The tester would report that the outcome was failed, per the method used but not fully implemented. If the content creator then used another method, met all the the tests to meet that method, and passed the outcome, is the content creator / score impacted due to the content creator not meeting the first method, but meeting the outcome per the second method? I.e. as long as they use "a method" and meet all steps within the test(s) for that method, they pass the outcome? Ultimately we want content creators to create content that is accessible to all. I just didn't see where this was factored in to scoring yet and wanted to bring it up here. If it has been discussed elsewhere on views / processes , conformance scope, that is fine and I can research it further.
Justine Pascalides This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. 1. Color contrast of the flow chart in the section should be enhanced, as it is difficult to see.

2. Functional needs for different user populations can at times conflict with each other. What mechanism exists to address instances where such a conflict exists? For example, individuals with cognitive disabilities require plain language that can at times create lengthy text but that experience would be clunky for a blind individual who is using a screen reader and/or refreshable braille device.
Wilco Fiers This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. The "testing" section (5.1) says outcomes will be testable stement. This should be clear in the "outcomes" section too. I would also point out that none of the current proposed outcomes are testable. It is essential that normative requirements are testable. It is not possible for a standard where what decides if you conform or not can change at any time.

I think AG should consider working based off test cases. Very few web standards these days are developed without a rigorous test suite. A test suite will help keep us focused and explicit, and will prevent backsliding.
Sarah Horton
Jake Abma This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. I would like to echo the comments of Detlev and Wilco

The Outcomes and Scoring deserves more proof if it can work and have consensus among the WG
What is this approach as indicated now does not work or solve / serves the refreshed needs?

(this may affect the complete structure)
Janina Sajka This section can be published as it is now.
Bruce Bailey This section can be published as it is now.
Oliver Keim This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. The chart (Figure 1) indicates that Gold may not contain Silver aspects. Is that on purpose?
Nicaise Dogbo This section can be published as it is now.
Grady Thompson This section can be published as it is now. Typo: there is an extra space between "for" and "managers" in 2.3
Andrew Kirkpatrick This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. The figure is too low-contrast. Also, it isn't clear to me why you need to reach bronze before silver or gold but don't need to reach silver to reach gold in the diagram.
Michael Gower
Gundula Niemann This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. 1) I recommend to give "Tests" an own layer, thus having methods (including description and examples) and Test (including tests and scoring). May go into an editorial note to explicitly ask about this point.
2) At the end of the first subsection it says "Tags will be applies to guidelines and methods." It should either say 'will be applied' or 'applies'. Should be fixed before publishing.
3) In Functional Needs it says "how-tTos". It should say 'how-tos' or 'How-Tos'. Should be fixed before publishing.
Stefan Schnabel This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. Each area should indicate if iit is normative in its containing documents or not as a part of the description in the guidelines section
Matt Garrish This section can be published as it is now. I'm a bit confused by the diagram that shows silver and gold as seemingly equal outcomes from bronze, but it might be me! Shouldn't there be some mention of holistic testing between bronze and the upper-level outcomes, with the possibility that neither is reached so there is a loopback result of bronze?

Similar to the previous section, putting the paragraph and figure in an Overview section might make this info easier to find.

Section 2.1 has a typo "how-tTos".

6. Normative requirements

The Normative requirements section of WCAG 3.0 is normative, a short section just defining which aspects are normative.

Please review and either approve for publishing in the FPWD or comment if there are things you think should be changed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
This section can be published as it is now. 10
This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. 6
This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. 1

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

Details

Responder Normative requirementsComments
Shawn Lawton Henry
Detlev Fischer
Peter Korn This section can be published as it is now.
Jeanne F Spellman This section can be published as it is now. Added an editor's note to say we are looking for feedback for also making the guidelines normative, or just the Outcomes.
Glenda Sims This section can be published as it is now.
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Laura Carlson This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. I assume that this section will be adjusted based on the outcome of the second question in this survey, "What do we call non-normative?". Is that correct?

Grammar:
"You may to want to make formal claims" should be "You may to want make formal claims"
Chris Loiselle This section can be published as it is now.
Justine Pascalides This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. 1. Fix the typo in section 2.1 "how-tTos"

Wilco Fiers This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. The phrase "The main content of WCAG 3.0 is normative" is vague. What is the "main content"?
Sarah Horton
Jake Abma This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. Defining a bit more elaborated / clear what the normative parts are / will be would be appreciated. The examples given are for informative info while the heading is about "Normative requirements:"
Janina Sajka This section can be published as it is now.
Bruce Bailey This section can be published as it is now.
Oliver Keim This section can be published as it is now.
Nicaise Dogbo This section can be published as it is now.
Grady Thompson This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. This should be modified depending on the results of question 2 of this survey.
Andrew Kirkpatrick This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. In the note, we refer to "functional outcomes" but these are referred to as just "outcomes" elsewhere in the document.
Michael Gower
Gundula Niemann This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. In the editorial note it says "whether the just the functional outcomes". It should say 'whether just the functional outcomes'. Should be fixed before publishing.
Stefan Schnabel This section can be published as it is now.
Matt Garrish This section can be published as it is now.

7. Guidelines (Not linked content)

The Guidelines section of WCAG 3.0 is normative and presents the initial guidelines, outcomes and methods. Do not review the linked content, just the content within the document iteself. The linked How To and Method content will be reviewed separately.

Please wait until Monday to review this particular section.

Please review and comment if there are things you think should be changed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
This section can be published as it is now. 3
This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. 6
This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. 5

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

Details

Responder Guidelines (Not linked content)Comments
Shawn Lawton Henry
Detlev Fischer If I look at the draft list of Guidelines I get a distinct feeling that they are not on the same level of hierarchy. Some, like "Visual contrast of text" look something further down the hierarchy where the Guideline would generally call for good contrast, possibly even include weight (of lines and fonts). I think it is important to start with the place where requirements get separated out, distributed, tested, and this seems to be "outcomes", and not worry much about the Guideline, which is an umbrella term that may help aggregate conformance ratings of a number of outcomes. Without getting a clear sense of how the outcomes work as a set, we haven't made much progress.
Peter Korn This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. Should there not be a simplified summary here as well?
Jeanne F Spellman waiting until Monday to see how much gets done.
Glenda Sims This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. The current state of this section is not acceptable for FPWD (and I'm unable to review it again between now and the meeting on Tuesday). Unfortunately, I have client work that will prevent me from attending most (or all) of the meeting on Tuesday.
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Laura Carlson This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. The statement "We propose changing the name of 'Color Contrast' to 'Visual Contrast'..." is inaccurate. WCAG 2.X does not have a "Color Contrast" SC. It has SC 1.4.3 'Contrast (Minimum)' and SC 1.4.6 'Contrast (Enhanced)'. In WCAG 2.x, contrast is a measure of the difference in perceived "luminance" or brightness between two colors (the phrase "color contrast" is never used). Suggest restating to "We propose changing the names of 'Contrast (Minimum)' and 'Contrast (Enhanced)' to 'Visual Contrast of Text'.
Chris Loiselle
Justine Pascalides This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. 1. Remove extra blank space in the 2.3 paragraph between "for" and "managers"
2. The wording "beginners to accessibility" is confusing. Suggest rephrasing to "individuals who are new to accessibility"
Wilco Fiers This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. Needs more time to survey this. There is no expectation for AG participants to be able to have time available at a day's notice.
Sarah Horton
Jake Abma This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. The examples given are not consistent and mature enough / thought out, to see how this fits our new structure and reliable, consistent and valid scoring, an MVP should not give in on prove and quality but limited in quantity.
Janina Sajka This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. I am troubled by the "Clear Words" section. I'm uncomfortable with the notion that we can fully describe plain language in WCAG itself. Entire books are written on this topic.
We admit to being English-centric. Is that U.S. English? What about a page aimed at helping a child who speaks Ebonics read published English better? What is simple tense? Does it exclude or include subjunctives?
Double negatives are ungrammatical as in English, but required to express a negative in Russian. Wouldn't we be better served to point to more exhaustive resources and limit ourselves to some comments about why this matters?
Bruce Bailey This section can be published as it is now.
Oliver Keim This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. The current types of content are very focused on the "obvious". However, non-obvious aspects, like a lean structured app screen, or a keyboard shortcuts design model are not listed, although there are guidelines which require design (CUA, Windows Styleguide, Apple HIG, Gnome UX).
Nicaise Dogbo This section can be published as it is now.
Grady Thompson
Andrew Kirkpatrick This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. 1) What is up with the "Methods for {Outcome Name}:" in 4.1 and elsewhere?
2) Terms like "text alternative" will need to be defined, won't they?
3) It is confusing. Things that appear to be linked are not or the links are 404's. If we are trying to get people to evaluate a new way of expressing the guidance we are making them go all the way until 4.4 before there is a link to a method (relevant headings). We will need to direct people to this point clearly to get feedback on it.
4) When we get to the methods page, the tests section feels incomplete. I see tests like "Check that each heading can be used for navigation purposes" and there is no explanation on how this is to be checked. Only the first test on the relevant headings method page seems ready.

The guidelines section feels very early-stage development.
Michael Gower
Gundula Niemann This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. On 4.1 Text alternatives
The text alternatives should not only be available for user agents and assistive technology, but also for all users, that is, visually.
One prominent example is to give the meaning of an icon also in words. may be indicated in an editorial note.
On 4.3 Captions
1) Agree whether outcomes all end with a period. Minor thing.
2) what is the distinction between key sound effects (first outcome) and sound (as referred to in the second outcome)? To me id does not sound reasonable the describe each and every sound in depth, only important ones.
3) the customization related outcomes rather address the displaying software (user agent, video player)), not the content provider. The responsibility/applicability should be clarified. May go into an editorial note (that this still needs to be done).
On 4.4. Structured content
1) Headings and section do nut suffice to structure content properly. The guideline should be more generic. Should be done before publishing.
2) having a different visualization for each heading yields visual noise. Should be fixed before publishing.
3) Third outcome: headings do not suffice. The semantic structure shall be provided for each structuring element, compare the table at the end of the subsection. Should be more generic. may go into an editorial note, though I prefer finxing before publishing.
On 4.5 Visual contrast of text
all outcomes: who selects? the UI / Web page / software or the end-user? The latter might not be realistically feasible. Should be clarified before publishing.





Stefan Schnabel This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. Spend a sentence or a link that final version will contain the full monty of guidelines (which are planned in total?)
Matt Garrish This section can be published as it is now. I'm not overly concerned about the completeness for a first draft, but there's a lack of consistency between the wording of the exceptions in Clear Words and the rest of the documents. It breaks some W3C editing conventions, like the use of "you" and contractions (which are problematic for translation and should be a priority for a document like this).

One example of why this matters, for example, is the phrase "does not apply to your language" invites the question why my language and not the language of the content. There's an inference in "you" / "your" that I am the one making the content ("you don't have to do it").

Similarly, "if this does not apply" is missing a subject, so what is this? If the language doesn't have clear words, doesn't have clear word standards, something else?

Not to pick on clear words, but I also expect there will need to be an exception for published works as it's not generally possible to rewrite novels, poetry, etc. to meet a requirement like this. These requirements move from ensuring the content can be read to requiring how it is written.

8. Evaluation

The Evaluation section of WCAG 3.0 is normative, and includes the testing and scoring content.

Please review and either approve for publishing in the FPWD or comment if there are things you think should be changed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
This section can be published as it is now. 5
This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. 4
This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. 3

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

Details

Responder EvaluationComments
Shawn Lawton Henry
Detlev Fischer It is not yet clear enough where task-based testing (testing of processes) belongs. They are probably neither atomic no holistic.
The sentence "Outcomes specify the related critical failures that can occur and how to identify them." can easily be misunderstood if the reader remembers that the outcome was used before as a succinct statement of a successful implementation. So failures can relate to outcomes, reference outcomes not reached.
I do not think critical failures are things that are a separate category, they are simply a critical flag on an outcome when content fails this outcome badly.
Peter Korn This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. The first sentence of the Editor's Note has it exactly backward. The model presented for evaluation is NOT better suited to accommodate dynamic or more regularly updated content (I would say "very frequently updated content", since "regularly" might mean every month like clockwork). It is for this situation that the alternative approach using holistic tests is needed (as dynamic content is precisely one of the situations in "where testing all content is not possible").

The last sentence of the Editor's Note "We also plan on including a definition and concept for substantially conforming" feels like it belongs in the Conformance section rather than the Evaluation section.
Jeanne F Spellman This section can be published as it is now.
Glenda Sims This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. Be nice to fix these two typos in 5.1.1: change "appriate" terms to "appropriate" terms. change: "Automated evaluationa>" to "Automated evaluation"
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Laura Carlson This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. Spelling:

* "appriate" should be "appropriate"
* "sugggestions" should be "suggestions"
* "Automated evaluationa>" should likely be "Automated evaluations"

Typo:
"One the goals" should likely be "One of the goals"

Grammar:
In the 5.3.1 Scoring atomic tests section, "of a outcome" should be "of an outcome"
Chris Loiselle See my comments in Section 5 of this survey.
Justine Pascalides This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. 1. The term "atomic tests" does not address WCAG 3's goal of using plain language. Consider using a more commonly used term such as "unit test".
2. Fix typo resulting from html code in section 5.1.1.1 "Automated evaluationa>"
3. In section 5.1.3, Critical Failures (or other appropriate section) is it possible to add a comment that allows certain minor violations if essential to the activity being performed (e.g., timing of a task within the context of standardized assessment)
Wilco Fiers This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. I do not think WCAG 3 should have an evaluation section at all. There are a variety of strategies organisations employ on how they build and evaluate accessible websites. If WCAG 3 was to enforce one over all other methods, it would significantly limit our industry's ability to innovate on better, faster, more efficient evaluation methods. Pieces relevant to conformance should be moved into the conformance section instead.
Sarah Horton
Jake Abma
Janina Sajka This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. Rachael's PR helps cover the main concerns of the Challenges with Conformance note draft. However,
I feel there's still confusion between what belongs in Evaluation vs Conformance. The Bronze/Silver/Gold model over multiple categories
is certainly a major improvement. However, we seem to have disagreement on whether it's truly scalable for industrial deployment and shouldn't assert that so categorically.
Bruce Bailey This section can be published as it is now.
Oliver Keim This section can be published as it is now.
Nicaise Dogbo This section can be published as it is now.
Grady Thompson
Andrew Kirkpatrick This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. I don't know how to evaluate whether the process for evaluating holistic tests makes sense without holistic tests to review.

errant "a>" in 5.1.1.1

The 96-100% rating (99-100 in 5.3.2) feels like we are trying to say that excellent is really tip-top but I think that it makes it unachievable for any site of significant size and complexity. I think that we need to spread the bands out more.

I don't think that there is enough detail in any guideline/method to evaluate how this would work in practice.


Michael Gower
Gundula Niemann
Stefan Schnabel This section can be published as it is now.
Matt Garrish

9. Conformance

The Conformance section of WCAG 3.0 is normative, and outlines how to claim conformance.

Please review and either approve for publishing in the FPWD or comment if there are things you think should be changed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
This section can be published as it is now. 6
This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. 4
This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. 3

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

Details

Responder ConformanceComments
Shawn Lawton Henry
Detlev Fischer Have no time to go through this now...
Peter Korn This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. The new Editor's Note is fine, but doesn't get at the key issue which is that Silver research & our goals said we needed an alternative to the existing conformance model (e.g. "substantially conforming"). That this FPWD doesn't include language to address that is OK, but we need to call out in this section (vs. in the Evaluation section) that we fully intend to address that prior to candidate recommendation.

Also, given all the work that went into it, I'd like to see an editor's note that references the Conformance Challenges document - to help reviewers understand the challenges we plan to address prior to CR.
Jeanne F Spellman This section can be published as it is now.
Glenda Sims This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. If the WCAG 3.0 Outcomes are normative (required for conformance) then we must add something to this section about "partial conformance with no critical barriers". In other words, I agree with Peter that...at the very least, an editor's note must be added stating that "substantial conformance" will be addressed prior to CR.
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Laura Carlson This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. Two incomplete sentences ("Reducing barriers." "Supporting ease of use.") are at the end of the Simplified Summary . Suggest removing them.

Typo/spelling in 6.4.1 Required components of a conformance claim:

* "(bronze, silver, or gold)l;" should be "(bronze, silver, or gold);"
* "adn assistive technology" should be "and assistive technology"
Chris Loiselle
Justine Pascalides This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. 1. Current conformance model is highly subjective regarding the gradations of conformance using the adjectival method. Such subjectivity may not hold up to legal challenge if the findings are not repeatable across a variety of independent testers.
2. Again, suggest using the term "unit test" rather than "atomic test" in the spirit of plain, easily understood language.
3. Section 2.8, Conformance Levels: Is conformance truly intended to be optional? That would present an issue for adoption of WCAG 3 into legislation. If not optional, explicitly state minimum level of conformance and what aspects of conformance are optional.
Wilco Fiers
Sarah Horton
Jake Abma This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. the "Atomic tests:" as mentioned here are not the same as ACT uses, this creates confusion. Atomic and composed tests are not thought out as we started out with using this approach / terms.

Examples of how atomic and holistic tests are working together, enforce the scoring and the reason why, with examples is still not clear yet.
As an example: I don't see why using AT will be judged as being 'better' that a pass/fail test.
A proper accessible name will not be worth silver or gold instead of bronze because you test with a screen reader instead of checking the code as a developer.

As far as the testing and scoring I like the theory and the ideas behind it, the prove of the score with mature examples is not there yet and may change the complete setup.
Janina Sajka This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. It should be even clearer that we're open to additional or alternative models. This is not a criticism of the existing model,
just the contention that it may not cover all we want to cover.
Bruce Bailey This section can be published as it is now.
Oliver Keim This section can be published as it is now.
Nicaise Dogbo This section can be published as it is now.
Grady Thompson This section can be published as it is now.
Andrew Kirkpatrick This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. This section hinges on the evaluation section, so it seems fine but I expect will need changes once the evaluation section is mature.
Michael Gower
Gundula Niemann
Stefan Schnabel This section can be published as it is now.
Matt Garrish

10. Glossary

The Glossary section of WCAG 3.0presents terms used in the WCAG 3 document.

Please review and either approve for publishing in the FPWD or comment if there are things you think should be changed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
This section can be published as it is now. 9
This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. 4
This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD.

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

Details

Responder GlossaryComments
Shawn Lawton Henry
Detlev Fischer
Peter Korn This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. The glossary defines the term Conformance as "Satisfying all the requirements of the guidelines." That may be fine to retain as-is, but it means we would need to either define a new term like "substantial conformance" when we develop that model, OR have a different term entirely that doesn't contain the word "conformance" in it, which captures situations in which it is possible to not satisfy all of the requirements (you can have an occasional failure), so long as the lived experience of site visitors actually trying to achieve their goals in visiting the site aren't significantly impacted.
Jeanne F Spellman This section can be published as it is now.
Glenda Sims This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. +1 to Peter's comment
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Laura Carlson This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. Spelling: "corrolary" should be "corollary"
Chris Loiselle
Justine Pascalides This section can be published as it is now.
Wilco Fiers
Sarah Horton
Jake Abma
Janina Sajka This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. As an FPWD we should frankly acknowledge we're a work in progress and that definitions are almost certain
to change based on further work and on comments we're sure to recieve.
Bruce Bailey This section can be published as it is now.
Oliver Keim This section can be published as it is now.
Nicaise Dogbo This section can be published as it is now.
Grady Thompson This section can be published as it is now.
Andrew Kirkpatrick This section can be published as it is now.
Michael Gower
Gundula Niemann
Stefan Schnabel This section can be published as it is now.
Matt Garrish This section can be published as it is now.

11. Structured Content How To and Method

The Structured Content How To and Method provides an example of this type of content.

Please review and either approve for publishing in the FPWD or comment if there are things you think should be changed.

.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
This section can be published as it is now. 5
This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. 1
This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. 2

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

Details

Responder Structured Content How To and MethodComments
Shawn Lawton Henry
Detlev Fischer
Peter Korn
Jeanne F Spellman waiting until Monday to see how much gets done.
Glenda Sims This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. How-To: Outcomes section was empty when I went to review it. So I am not going to review now (because I assume it is not ready for review).
Method: For this to be complete, it must clearly define if any of the following are not conforming: 1) Empty headings. 2) Skipping heading levels. 3) More than 1 H1 in a view. 4) Use of headings in a view but no H1 (in other words, starting with H2). 5) If a heading is always required for every view.
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Laura Carlson
Chris Loiselle
Justine Pascalides 1. The "How To" links next to each guideline WCAG 3.0 appear to be non-functional
2. Section 4:1 - What is the intention of including "outcome name" in curly braces beneath a number of the guidelines within WCAG 3?
Wilco Fiers
Sarah Horton
Jake Abma
Janina Sajka This section can be published as it is now.
Bruce Bailey This section can be published as it is now.
Oliver Keim This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. To much focused on content design, should also address application design. As these components need to be reachable via keyboard/etc the structure design should be consistent to the interaction design. That is currently not reflected.
Nicaise Dogbo This section can be published as it is now.
Grady Thompson This section can be published as it is now.
Andrew Kirkpatrick This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. For the "structured content how to" it is fine, although if designers are a target audience the how to is very text heavy and doesn't reinforce the concepts with visual examples.


For the Method, it needs to be more clear. Do you need to meet all atomic tests? For the scoring, how are the atomic and holistic tests used in this scoring? It isn't clear how to put this into practice.
Michael Gower
Gundula Niemann
Stefan Schnabel This section can be published as it is now.
Matt Garrish

More details on responses

  • Shawn Lawton Henry: last responded on 10, September 2020 at 19:46 (UTC)
  • Detlev Fischer: last responded on 11, September 2020 at 17:15 (UTC)
  • Peter Korn: last responded on 11, September 2020 at 19:30 (UTC)
  • Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 13, September 2020 at 13:22 (UTC)
  • Glenda Sims: last responded on 13, September 2020 at 20:45 (UTC)
  • Rachael Bradley Montgomery: last responded on 14, September 2020 at 01:09 (UTC)
  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 14, September 2020 at 13:30 (UTC)
  • Chris Loiselle: last responded on 14, September 2020 at 15:00 (UTC)
  • Justine Pascalides: last responded on 14, September 2020 at 15:46 (UTC)
  • Wilco Fiers: last responded on 14, September 2020 at 18:01 (UTC)
  • Sarah Horton: last responded on 15, September 2020 at 12:30 (UTC)
  • Jake Abma: last responded on 15, September 2020 at 12:57 (UTC)
  • Janina Sajka: last responded on 15, September 2020 at 13:23 (UTC)
  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 15, September 2020 at 13:41 (UTC)
  • Oliver Keim: last responded on 15, September 2020 at 14:13 (UTC)
  • Nicaise Dogbo: last responded on 15, September 2020 at 14:24 (UTC)
  • Grady Thompson: last responded on 15, September 2020 at 14:45 (UTC)
  • Andrew Kirkpatrick: last responded on 15, September 2020 at 14:46 (UTC)
  • Michael Gower: last responded on 15, September 2020 at 14:52 (UTC)
  • Gundula Niemann: last responded on 15, September 2020 at 14:56 (UTC)
  • Stefan Schnabel: last responded on 15, September 2020 at 15:00 (UTC)
  • Matt Garrish: last responded on 15, September 2020 at 15:12 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

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

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.