W3C

Results of Questionnaire AUWG Survey for 5 December

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2011-12-02 to 2011-12-23.

7 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Addition of the "Success Criteria Satisfaction" sub-section to the Conformance section
  2. ATAG 2.0 Conformance (Level A, AA, or AAA)
  3. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance
  4. Conformance Claims Note

1. Addition of the "Success Criteria Satisfaction" sub-section to the Conformance section

Jan's email proposal

The first step in determining ATAG 2.0 conformance is to assess whether the Success Criteria have been satisfied. The potential answers are:
• Yes: In the case of some success criteria, this will include a Level (A, AA, or AAA) with reference to WCAG 2.0. If a conformance claim is made, an explanation is optional, but strongly recommended.
• No: If a conformance claim is made, an explanation is optional, but strongly recommended.
• Not Applicable: The ATAG 2.0 definition of authoring tool is inclusive and, as such, it covers software with a wide range of capabilities and contexts of operation. In order to take into account authoring tools with limited feature sets (e.g., a photo editor, a CSS editor, a status update field in a social networking application), many of the ATAG 2.0 success criteria are conditional, applying only to authoring tools with the given features(s). If a conformance claim is made, an explanation of why the success criterion is not applicable is required.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

Details

Responder Addition of the "Success Criteria Satisfaction" sub-section to the Conformance sectionSuccess Criteria Satisfaction
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal I agree, just a minor point: Each bullet includes "If a conformance claim is made...".

Surely you would only be answering these questions for a conformance claim? Therefore it could be reduced slightly by removing those words from each bullet point.
Jutta Treviranus Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal

2. ATAG 2.0 Conformance (Level A, AA, or AAA)

Jan's email proposal

Conformance Options and Levels:

There are two types of conformance, each with three levels:

ATAG 2.0 Conformance (Level A, AA, or AAA)This conformance option may be selected when an authoring tool can be used to produce web content without additional authoring process components. The level of conformance is determined as follows:
• Level A: The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable Level A success criteria.
• Level AA: The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable Level A and Level AA success criteria.
• Level AAA: The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable success criteria.

Note 1: The Part A Conformance Applicability Notes and Part B Conformance Applicability Notes must be applied.

Note 2: If the minimum conformance level (Level A) has not been achieved (i.e., at least one applicable Level A success criterion has not been met), it is still beneficial to publish a statement specifying which success criteria were met.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 7
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

Details

Responder ATAG 2.0 Conformance (Level A, AA, or AAA)Levels of Conformance
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal
Jutta Treviranus Accept the proposal Is "authoring process components" a clear term for what we mean?
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal

3. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance

Jan's email

Statement of Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance - Process Component (Level A, AA, or AAA)


This conformance option may be selected when an authoring tool would require additional authoring process components in order to conform as a complete authoring system. This option may be used for components with very limited functionality (e.g. a plug-in) up to nearly complete systems (e.g. a markup editor that only lacks accessibility checking functionality). The level of conformance (A, AA, or AAA) is determined as above, except that "No" answers are ignored on the condition that, for all "No" answers, the tool would not prevent the success criteria from being met by another authoring process component as part of a complete authoring system.

Note 1: Authoring tools do not qualify for the exemption if they prevent additional authoring process components from meeting the failed success criteria (e.g. for security reasons).

Note 2: The Part A Conformance Applicability Notes and Part B Conformance Applicability Notes must be applied.

Web Content Technologies Produced: Authoring tools conform to ATAG 2.0 with respect to the production of specific web content technologies (e.g., Level A Conformance with respect to the production of XHTML 1.0).If an authoring tool is capable of producing multiple web content technologies, then the conformance may include only a subset of these technologies as long as the subset includes any technologies that the developer either sets for automatically-generated content or sets as the default for author-generated content. The subset may include "interim" formats that are not intended for publishing to end users, but this is not required.

Live Publishing Authoring Tools: ATAG 2.0 may be applied to authoring tools with workflows that involve live authoring of web content (e.g., some collaborative tools). Due to the challenges inherent in real-time publishing, conformance to Part B of ATAG 2.0 for these authoring tools may involve some combination of support before (e.g., support in preparing accessible slides), during (e.g., live captioning as WCAG 2.0 requires at Level AA) and after the live authoring session (e.g., the ability to add a transcript to the archive of a presentation that was initially published in real-time). For more information, see the Implementing ATAG 2.0 - Appendix E: Authoring Tools for Live Web Content. Conformance Claims (Optional)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 5
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) 1
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group 1

Details

Responder Partial ATAG 2.0 ConformancePartial ATAG 2.0 Conformancened
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group For "Web Content Technologies Produced", that implies that you would make a conformance claim for each technology, is that right? Presumably you don't have to claim for associated technologies like CSS & JS?

I'm not 100% sure on this bit: "as long as the subset includes any technologies that the developer either sets for automatically-generated content or sets as the default for author-generated content"

Is that trying to say that the default output should be the one covered by the claim? The "default for author-generated content" seems to be the stronger concept, do we need the auto-generated bit?
Jutta Treviranus Accept the proposal In principle I agree with this. I think we need to change some of the language to be clearer - especially introducing terms such as "exemption", and "ignoring" no responses.
Sueann Nichols The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) Not sure the term "authoring process components" is clear. It's when an external product, plug-in not provided by the tool being assessed is required in addition to the tool to provide a ATAG defined (complete) solution.

4. Conformance Claims Note

Jan's email

Note added at the top of Conformance Claims section: "Note: As with any software application, authoring tools can be collections of components. As with a legal claim, a conformance claim can only be made by a responsible entity. Any other attempted "claims" are, in fact, reviews. "

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
Recommend changes (see comments field)
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) 1
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

Details

Responder Conformance Claims NoteConformance Claims Note
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) I am not answering this question at this time, but once a radio button is checked, it can't be unchecked.
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal
Jutta Treviranus Accept the proposal
Sueann Nichols Accept the proposal

More details on responses

  • Jan Richards: last responded on 2, December 2011 at 16:46 (UTC)
  • Alessandro Miele: last responded on 5, December 2011 at 13:51 (UTC)
  • Frederick Boland: last responded on 5, December 2011 at 14:04 (UTC)
  • Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 5, December 2011 at 20:05 (UTC)
  • Alastair Campbell: last responded on 12, December 2011 at 18:37 (UTC)
  • Jutta Treviranus: last responded on 12, December 2011 at 19:10 (UTC)
  • Sueann Nichols: last responded on 12, December 2011 at 19:32 (UTC)

Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.


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 (preferred) or by mail to sysreq.