w3c/wbs-design
or
by mail to sysreq
.
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.
This questionnaire was open from 2012-12-28 to 2013-03-29.
8 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
A.3.1.1 Keyboard Access (Minimum): All functionality of the authoring tool is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints.
Test 0001 Assertion: All functionality of the authoring tool is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints.
Test 0001 Author: Tim Boland
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 7 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | 1 |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.3.1.1 tests | Comments on A.3.1.1 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | Add this to end of step 1. "(Note: If this is due to limitations of the platform, "Partial Conformance due to Platform Limitation" is still possible.)" Shouldn't there be a step here for web-based content where it already passes 2.1.1 to avoid duplicative test? This SC is not about visible focus, why is 4.2 there? Language in 4.3 can be improved. The never and ever conditions are not as clear as it can be. |
A.3.1.2 No Keyboard Traps: If keyboard focus can be moved to a component using a keyboard interface, then focus can be moved away from that component using only a keyboard interface, and, if it requires more than unmodified arrow or tab keys or other standard exit methods, authors are advised of the method for moving focus away. (Level A)
Test 0001 Assertion: If keyboard focus can be moved to a component using a keyboard interface, then focus can be moved away from that component using only a keyboard interface, and, if it requires more than unmodified arrow or tab keys or other standard exit methods, authors are advised of the method for moving focus away.
Test 0001 Author: Tim Boland, Jan
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 7 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | 1 |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.3.1.2 tests | Comments on A.3.1.2 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | TYPO: because once it remains "stuck" one control or on a sub-set of controls --> because it remains "stuck" on one control or on a sub-set of controls |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | Add this to end of step 1. "(Note: If this is due to limitations of the platform, "Partial Conformance due to Platform Limitation" is still possible.)" Shouldn't there be a step here for web-based content where it already passes 2.1.2 to avoid duplicative test? On 3.4, what if the keyboard focus cannot be returned to the first control for an unlisted reason. The test does not involve collecting data on standard exit methods (Esc, F6, etc.) nor does it involve determining whether authors are advised of the method for moving focus away, probably via documentation. Lastly, the test is really about looping or linearization of focus order. The SC is about whether you can move the focus away from a given component. There is a difference. |
A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The authoring tool user interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more efficient than sequential keyboard access. (Level AA)
Test 0001 Assertion: The authoring tool user interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more efficient than sequential keyboard access.
Test 0001 Author: Tim Boland, Jan
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 7 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | 1 |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.3.1.3 tests | Comments on A.3.1.3 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | TYPO: "select select" |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | Just at the end of points 2 and 5 the word "select" is repeated twice: "select select PASS" |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | Recommend changes (see comments field) | Add this to end of step 1. "(Note: If this is due to limitations of the platform, "Partial Conformance due to Platform Limitation" is still possible.) " |
A.3.1.4 Keyboard Access (Enhanced): All functionality of the authoring tool is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes. (Level AAA)
Test 0001 Assertion: All functionality of the authoring tool is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes.
Test 0001 Author: Tim Boland, Jan
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 7 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | 1 |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.3.1.4 tests | Comments on A.3.1.4 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | If the SC only ask for keyboard to work, then the test should not test for visible focus. WCAG 2.0 has SC 2.4.7 for focus visibility. If we need to solve the same problem, then we need an SC for that. We cannot add extraneous test per 4.2 for A.3.1.4 above just to pluck a hole in ATAG. That goes the same for A.3.1.1. Step 4.2 is not acceptable. |
A.3.1.5 Customize Keyboard Access: If the authoring tool includes keyboard commands, then those keyboard commands can be customized. (Level AAA)
Test 0001 Assertion: Keyboard commands can be customized.
Test 0001 Author: Tim, Jan
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 6 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | 1 |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group | 1 |
Responder | A.3.1.5 test(s) | Comments on A.3.1.5 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | Isn't reasonable to require all keyboard commands be customizable. A number of applications do not permit the use of "reserved" commands for example if you want to change Cntrl+P for anything other than printing on the windows platform. This test does not address the issue of avoiding keyboard conflicts. Also AT may add an ability to "strap on" custom keyboard commands. Need to factor in the ability to accomodate adding keyboard shortcuts when using AT (JAWS bypass keys for instance). |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group | The language for 3.1 rubs me the wrong way. If the test does a poor job in searching, then he/she may erroneously select fail. I think it can use improvement. |
A.3.1.6 Present Keyboard Commands: If the authoring tool includes keyboard commands, then the authoring tool provides a way for authors to determine the keyboard commands associated with authoring tool user interface components. (Level AAA)
Test 0001 Assertion: Keyboard Commands can be associated with User Interface Components
Test 0001 Author: Tim, Jan
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 8 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.3.1.6 tests | Comments on A.3.1.6 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | Accept the proposal |
A.3.2.1 Auto-Save (Minimum): If the authoring tool includes authoring session time limits, then the authoring tool can be set to automatically save web content edits made using the authoring tool before the session time limits are reached. (Level A)
Test 0001 Assertion: All time limits implement auto-save.
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 6 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | 1 |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | 1 |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.3.2.1 tests | Comments on A.3.2.1 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | All ok for all but point 1 of text is ambiguos. What means? Sometimes the session autosave isn't viewable until some time (example: wordpress after 2 minutes display info that has autosaved the content). Suggest a text similar to A.3.2.4 |
Jan Richards | Recommend changes (see comments field) | TYPO: "sessions(" ADD: To (1) add "The time limit must be controlled by the authoring tool and not a larger system of which the authoring tool might be just a part. |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | Accept the proposal |
A.3.2.2 Timing Adjustable: If a time limit is set by the authoring tool, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A)
Test 0001 Time limits et by authoring tools can be turned off, adjusted, extended, are real-time exceptions, are essential, or exceed 20 hours.
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 7 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | 1 |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.3.2.2 tests | Comments on A.3.2.2 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | What about tools like wordpress where the time limit is set via php-configuration? http://codex.wordpress.org/Editing_wp-config.php#Modify_AutoSave_Interval |
Jan Richards | Recommend changes (see comments field) | TYPO: et-->set ADD: To (1) add "The time limit must be controlled by the authoring tool and not a larger system of which the authoring tool might be just a part. |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | Accept the proposal |
A.3.2.3 Static Input Components: If authoring tool user interface components that accept input can move, then authors can pause the movement. (Level A)
Test 0001 Assertion: If components of the authoring tool user interface can move, the author can pause the movement.
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 7 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | 1 |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.3.2.3 tests | Comments on A.3.2.3 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | Animation and video are usually not used as user interface components. I think the examples are too misleading. Likewise, the stop and pause buttons are usually only used for video. I don't think they are necessarily good examples in this context. I advise to remove all the examples. |
A.3.2.4 Content Edits Saved (Extended): The authoring tool can be set to automatically save web content edits made using the authoring tool. (Level AAA)
Test 0001 Assertion: The authoring tool automatically saves edits or has a configuration option to automatically save edits.
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 6 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | 1 |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | 1 |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.3.2.4 tests | Comments on A.3.2.4 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Recommend changes (see comments field) | CHANGE: "5-10 minutes" to "for a period that exceeds the auto-save period" |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | Why 5-10 minutes? That seem arbitrary. Shouldn't the tester consult the documentation/instructional material for frequency? There may be other extraneous dependencies such as bandwidth constraints to consider. For example, auto save may turn off if using metered data connection, such as mobile data. |
A.3.3.1 Static View Option: If the authoring tool contains editing-views that render visual time-based content, then those editing-views can be paused and can be set to not play automatically. (Level A)
Test 0001 Assertion: If the authoring tool contains editing-views that render visual time-based content, then those editing-views can be paused and can be set to not play automatically
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 6 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | 1 |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | 1 |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.3.3.1 tests | Comments on A.3.3.1 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Recommend changes (see comments field) | ADD: 7. Otherwise, select FAIL. |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | There is a good possibility that the content will never be played automatically at all. If that is the case, it should not fail the SC. But we have the text "can be set to not play" in the SC, thus making scenarios in which the outcome of SC is achieve but doing so in a way that fails the SC because it was not "set". We may need to revise the SC text a little. |
A.3.4.1 Navigate By Structure: If editing-views expose the markup elements in the web content being edited, then the markup elements (e.g., source code, content renderings) are selectable and navigation mechanisms are provided to move the selection focus between elements. (Level AA)
Test 0001 Assertion: Markup elements (e.g., source code, content renderings) are selectable and navigation mechanisms are provided to move the selection focus between elements
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 7 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | 1 |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.3.4.1 tests | Comments on A.3.4.1 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | Shouldn't there be a step before 1 to determine if the tool even handle contents that contains structure? Some content format do not have structure as intended here. I don't follow the text "if it is not possible to select a disclosed element without selecting any of the content that surrounds it". How is content selection related to navigation? The SC is about navigating to somewhere, not selecting things. If the content is right-protected, user may not be able to select a structure. But the ability to navigate can still be there. Again, the text "If the only way to move selection from one disclosed element to the other is by clearing the selection and manually selecting the start and end point of the new element in the source" is about selection, not navigation. |
A.3.4.2 Navigate by Programmatic Relationships: If editing-views allow editing of programmatic relationships within web content, then mechanisms are provided that support navigation between the related content. (Level AAA) Note: Depending on the web content technology and the nature of the authoring tool, relationships may include, but are not limited to, element nesting, headings, labeling, programmatic definitions, and ID relationships.
Test 0001 Assertion: Mechanisms are provided that support navigation between the related content.
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 5 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | 2 |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | 1 |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.3.4.2 tests | Comments on A.3.4.2 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Recommend changes (see comments field) | ADD 3. Otherwise, select FAIL. |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | Not quite sure what this is saying. The way this is written "navigate between pieces of web content (elements, functions, etc.) where there is a programmatic relationship" implies you can navigate the code. Isn't the point to exploit the relationships and "flip flop" between elements where there is an established relationship? |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | Recommend changes (see comments field) | Shouldn't there be a step before 1 to determine if the tool even handle contents that contains structure? Some content format do not have structure as intended here. There is very high likelihood that the relationship will appear in the form of tree structure. We should make that as an example to make the text more understandable. |
A.3.5.1 Text Search: If the authoring tool provides an editing-view of text-based content, then the editing-view enables text search, such that all of the following are true: (Level AA)
Test 0001 Assertion: All editing-views for enable text search where any text content that is editable by the editing-view is searchable, results can be made visible to authors and given focus, authors are informed when no results are found and search can be made forwards or backwards.
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 7 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | 1 |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.3.5.1 tests | Comments on A.3.5.1 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | TYPO: "for enable"--> enable |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | Recommend changes (see comments field) | 2.2 It should be choose a word "that is repeated" from within the text. 2.2 the tester may be using a decent user agent and select fail because of a decision in the tester's part. If it does not work, then the tester needs to test with different user agents. 2.3 Please change to "...determine whether the editing view "can be" moved..." instead. The SC does not require an automatic move of focus. |
A.3.6.1 Independence of Display: If the authoring tool includes display settings for editing-views, then the authoring tool allows authors to adjust these settings without modifying the web content being edited. (Level A)
Test 0001 Assertion: Authors can adjust display settings without modifying the web content being edited.
Test Author: Tim Boland & Jan Richards
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 6 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | 1 |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | 1 |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.3.6.1 tests | Comments on A.3.6.1 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | 4.2 isn't that the point the author makes a change, then the end use experience should change. I gather the point here is to separate authoring view from rendered view. The assertion might be clearer if written "Authors can adjust display settings of editing views without affecting the display of the final content." |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | Recommend changes (see comments field) | 4.2 is too abbreviated. I recommend to add the use of the same method used in step 3 to retrieve the content, make comparison of the results from step 3 and 4.3, if the difference between the result from step 3 & 4.3 is caused by the display change (some changes can be caused by timing, such as last updated date/time or other update--hopefully nobody add a plug-in or update patches in the meantime, but you never know). |
A.3.6.2 Save Settings: If the authoring tool includes display and/or control settings, then these settings can be saved between authoring sessions. (Level AA)
Test 0001 Assertion: Preferences for display or control settings can be saved between authoring sessions.
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 7 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | 1 |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.3.6.2 tests | Comments on A.3.6.2 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | Just wondering--do we really expect testers to test every setting? If it works for one, you'd think that all the rest should work. This is obviously different for product development testing, where the purpose is to find bugs. But it seems a bit much for ATAG context. |
A.3.6.3 Apply Platform Settings: The authoring tool respects changes in platform display and control settings, unless authors select more specific display and control settings using the authoring tool. (Level AA)
Test 0001 Assertion: If the user makes a change to the platform display or control settings, then those changes appear in the authoring tool. If the user makes a change to the platform display or control settings and that change does NOT appear in the authoring tool, then the authoring tool has more specific display and control settings inside the authoring tool.
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 6 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | 2 |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.3.6.3 tests | Comments on A.3.6.3 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Recommend changes (see comments field) | TYPO: "settings(" CHANGE: 5 to "Otherwise, select FAIL." |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | Recommend changes (see comments field) | This test is missing a step. To make comparisons, the tester needs to record the initial state of the tool before changing the platform setting. Step 3 should be to compare the results. Step 4 ought to be "...If the authoring tool allows more specific display and control settings" instead...." |
A.3.6.4 Multiple Sets: If the authoring tool includes display and/or control settings, then the authoring tool provides the option of saving and reloading multiple configurations of settings. (Level AAA)
Test 0001 Assertion: The authoring tool has the ability to save, name, and reload multiple configurations of settings.
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 7 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | 1 |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.3.6.4 tests | Comments on A.3.6.4 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | Same comments for A.3.6.2--Just wondering--do we really expect testers to test every setting? If it works for one, you'd think that all the rest should work. This is obviously different for product development testing, where the purpose is to find bugs. But it seems a bit much for ATAG context. |
A.3.7.1 Preview (Minimum): If a preview is provided, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A)
Test 0001 Assertion: Previews use either in-market user agents or conform to Level A of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0.
Test Author: Greg Pisocky
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 7 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | 1 |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.3.7.1 tests | Comments on A.3.7.1 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | There seems to be nested parenthesis or the sentence is not completely clear since in the two parenthesis there is an ending sentence. I'd suggest to extract the parenthesis content at the end of the main sentence as a note. Point 4: If one of the options [...] employs an in-market user agent ( [...] (free or otherwise). Usually, [...] ), then go to the next opportunity to perform a preview. |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | What is an "opportunity to perform a preview"? I don't know what to make of it. |
A.3.7.2 Preview (Enhanced): If a preview is provided, then authors can specify which user agent performs the preview. (Level AAA)
Test 0001 Assertion: Authors can choose from a set of in-market user agents for previews.
Test Author: Greg Pisocky
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 7 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | 1 |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.3.7.2 tests | Comments on A.3.7.2 |
---|---|---|
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | Same as on previous |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | The most common way to meet this SC are to either select the default app from the OS or use open with. I think it should be noted. Also, the most likely reason to fail this SC is that there is only one app capable of previewing a certain content format. Should we fail an authoring tool maker because of the market condition of a content format? I think we may want to reconsider... This also brings up the fact that OS do this already. In fact, I can't think of an OS that does not. And the only real reason to fail is the popularity of the content format or lack there of. Is the SC still needed? |
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
w3c/wbs-design
or
by mail to sysreq
.