W3C

Results of Questionnaire AUWG survey on Rephrasing SC to positive IF clauses

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: jeanne@w3.org

This questionnaire was open from 2013-05-23 to 2013-06-14.

8 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. The need for positive reframing of the IF clause in select success criteria
  2. A.3.2.1
  3. A.3.2.2
  4. A.3.2.3
  5. A.3.3.1
  6. B.1.1.1
  7. B.2.1.1
  8. B.2.3.2
  9. B.2.3.3
  10. B.4.1.2
  11. B.4.1.3

1. The need for positive reframing of the IF clause in select success criteria

From Jan's email of 17 May 2013:

A while back, in order to be more clear about applicability, we added IF statements to many of ATAG2's SCs.

This did make applicability more clear, but in some cases the behaviour in question was so obviously "dangerous" from an accessibility (and often usability) perspective (e.g. moving clickable controls) that it was already rare.

This is a challenge now that we are trying to find POSITIVE implementations for CR (i.e. implementations that meet the IF clause).

One possibility would be to change all of them to include not doing the "dangerous" thing as an implementation option (We already do this for " A.3.1.2 No Keyboard Traps" which says essentially "don't allow keyboard traps" rather than saying "IF you cause a keyboard trap, then do X").

The new wording could be something like...The authoring tool either does not do X or if it does, then it compensates by doing Y.

On 23 May Jan sent an email with proposed new wording for those success criteria.

Details

Responder Need
Jeanne F Spellman
Alex Li Don't agree with charactering the wording as dangerous. Agree the current text makes a number of SCs not applicable most of the time because the scenario described are indeed rare.
Tom Babinszki I agree with the approach.
Jan Richards
Alessandro Miele
Frederick Boland
Greg Pisocky
Sueann Nichols

2. A.3.2.1

Current

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)

Proposed

A.3.2.1 Auto-Save (Minimum): The authoring tools does not include session time limits or 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)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 6
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group 1
Suggest the following changes to the proposal (use the comment field) 1

Details

Responder A.3.2.1A.3.2.1
Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal
Alex Li Suggest the following changes to the proposal (use the comment field) I thought we discussed this but "be set to" should be deleted because the behavior to auto save can potentially be always on.

Editorial: the SC can be a lot shorter with, "The authoring tools does not include session time limits or the authoring tool can automatically save edits made before the session time limits."
Tom Babinszki Agree with the proposal
Jan Richards Agree with the proposal
Alessandro Miele Agree with the proposal
Frederick Boland Agree with the proposal
Greg Pisocky Agree with the proposal
Sueann Nichols Neutral, will accept consensus of the group

3. A.3.2.2

Note that the proposed change is in the first sentence, but I have included all the options for context purposes.

Current

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)
(a) Turn Off: Authors are allowed to turn off the time limit before encountering it; or
(b) Adjust: Authors are allowed to adjust the time limit before encountering it over a wide range that is at least ten times the length of the default setting; or
(c) Extend: Authors are warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with a simple action (e.g., "press the space bar"), and authors are allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times; or
(d) Real-time Exception: The time limit is a required part of a real-time event (e.g., a collaborative authoring system), and no alternative to the time limit is possible; or
(e) Essential Exception: The time limit is essential and extending it would invalidate the activity; or
(f) 20 Hour Exception: The time limit is longer than 20 hours.

Proposed

A.3.2.2 Timing Adjustable: The authoring tool does not include time limits or at least one of the following is true: (Level A)
(a) Turn Off: Authors are allowed to turn off the time limit before encountering it; or
(b) Adjust: Authors are allowed to adjust the time limit before encountering it over a wide range that is at least ten times the length of the default setting; or
(c) Extend: Authors are warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with a simple action (e.g., "press the space bar"), and authors are allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times; or
(d) Real-time Exception: The time limit is a required part of a real-time event (e.g., a collaborative authoring system), and no alternative to the time limit is possible; or
(e) Essential Exception: The time limit is essential and extending it would invalidate the activity; or
(f) 20 Hour Exception: The time limit is longer than 20 hours.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 7
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group 1
Suggest the following changes to the proposal (use the comment field)

Details

Responder A.3.2.2A.3.2.2
Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal
Alex Li Agree with the proposal
Tom Babinszki Agree with the proposal
Jan Richards Agree with the proposal
Alessandro Miele Agree with the proposal
Frederick Boland Agree with the proposal
Greg Pisocky Agree with the proposal
Sueann Nichols Neutral, will accept consensus of the group

4. A.3.2.3

Current

A.3.2.3 Static Input Components: If authoring tool user interface components accept input and move, then authors can pause the movement. (Level A)

Proposed

A.3.2.3 Static Input Components: The authoring tool does not include moving user interface components that accept input or authors can pause the movement. (Level A)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 6
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group 1
Suggest the following changes to the proposal (use the comment field) 1

Details

Responder A.3.2.3A.3.2.3
Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal
Alex Li Agree with the proposal
Tom Babinszki Agree with the proposal
Jan Richards Agree with the proposal
Alessandro Miele Agree with the proposal
Frederick Boland Agree with the proposal
Greg Pisocky Suggest the following changes to the proposal (use the comment field) A.3.2.3 Static Input Components: The authoring tool does not include moving user interface components that accespt input where the movement of these components cannot be paused by users.
Sueann Nichols Neutral, will accept consensus of the group

5. A.3.3.1

NOTE: For A.3.3.1 I just simplified and removed "automatically" from the IF condition.:

Current

A.3.3.1 Static View Option: If the authoring tool contains editing-views that render and play visual time-based content automatically, then those editing-views can be paused and can be set to not play automatically. (Level A)

Proposed

A.3.3.1 Static View Option: If an editing-view can render and play visual time-based content, then the playing can be paused and can be set to not play automatically. (Level A)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 5
Disagree with the proposal 1
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group 1
Suggest the following changes to the proposal (use the comment field) 1

Details

Responder A.3.3.1A.3.3.1
Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal
Alex Li Disagree with the proposal For authoring tool that plays visual time-based content, one of the following is true:
a) The visual time-based content does not play automatically
b) The visual time-based content can be set to not play automatically
c) The visual time-based content can be paused
Tom Babinszki Agree with the proposal
Jan Richards Agree with the proposal
Alessandro Miele Agree with the proposal
Frederick Boland Agree with the proposal
Greg Pisocky Suggest the following changes to the proposal (use the comment field) A.3.3.1 Static View Option: If an editing-view can render and play visual time-based content, then the playing can be paused and there is an option to disable automatic play. (Level A)
Sueann Nichols Neutral, will accept consensus of the group

6. B.1.1.1

Current

B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Generation After Authoring Sessions (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides the functionality for automatically generating web content after the end of an authoring session, authors can specify that the content be accessible web content (WCAG). (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)
- Note: This success criterion applies only to automatic processes specified by the authoring tool developer. It does not apply when author actions prevent generation of accessible web content (WCAG).

Proposed

B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Generation After Authoring Sessions (WCAG): The authoring tool does not automatically generate web content after the end of an authoring session or authors can specify that the content be accessible web content (WCAG). (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)
- Note: This success criterion applies only to automatic processes specified by the authoring tool developer. It does not apply when author actions prevent generation of accessible web content (WCAG).

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 6
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group 2
Suggest the following changes to the proposal (use the comment field)

Details

Responder B.1.1.1B.1.1.1
Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal
Alex Li Agree with the proposal
Tom Babinszki Agree with the proposal
Jan Richards Agree with the proposal
Alessandro Miele Agree with the proposal
Frederick Boland Agree with the proposal
Greg Pisocky Neutral, will accept consensus of the group
Sueann Nichols Neutral, will accept consensus of the group

7. B.2.1.1

Current

B.2.1.1 Accessible Content Possible (WCAG): If the authoring tool places restrictions on the web content that authors can specify, then those restrictions do not prevent WCAG 2.0 success criteria from being met. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

Proposed

B.2.1.1 Accessible Content Possible (WCAG): The authoring tool does not place restrictions on the web content that authors can specify or those restrictions do not prevent WCAG 2.0 success criteria from being met. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 6
Disagree with the proposal 1
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group 1
Suggest the following changes to the proposal (use the comment field)

Details

Responder B.2.1.1B.2.1.1
Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal
Alex Li Disagree with the proposal Copy and paste error in the survey. It should be, "B.2.1.1 Accessible Content Possible (WCAG): The authoring tool does not place restrictions on the web content that authors can specify or those restrictions do not prevent WCAG 2.0 success criteria from being met. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)"
Tom Babinszki Agree with the proposal
Jan Richards Agree with the proposal
Alessandro Miele Agree with the proposal
Frederick Boland Agree with the proposal
Greg Pisocky Agree with the proposal
Sueann Nichols Neutral, will accept consensus of the group

8. B.2.3.2

Current

B.2.3.2 Repair of Text Alternatives During Authoring Sessions: If the authoring tool attempts to automatically or semi-automatically repair text alternatives for non-text content ("repair strings") during an authoring session, then the following are both true: (Level A)
(a) No Generic or Irrelevant Strings: Generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g., the file name, file format) are not offered as repair strings; and
(b) Author Control: Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the repair strings prior to insertion in the content.

Proposed

B.2.3.2 Repair of Text Alternatives During Authoring Sessions: The authoring tool does not attempt to automatically or semi-automatically repair text alternatives for non-text content ("repair strings") during an authoring session or the following are both true: (Level A)
(a) No Generic or Irrelevant Strings: Generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g., the file name, file format) are not offered as repair strings; and
(b) Author Control: Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the repair strings prior to insertion in the content.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 5
Disagree with the proposal 1
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group 1
Suggest the following changes to the proposal (use the comment field) 1

Details

Responder B.2.3.2B.2.3.2
Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal
Alex Li Disagree with the proposal When did we add "semi-automatically" in the SC text? What does that mean? Is that testable? I'm okay with the rest.
Tom Babinszki Agree with the proposal
Jan Richards Agree with the proposal
Alessandro Miele Agree with the proposal
Frederick Boland Agree with the proposal
Greg Pisocky Suggest the following changes to the proposal (use the comment field) B.2.3.2 Automatic Insertion of Text Alternatives During Authoring Sessions: The authoring tool does not attempt to automatically or semi-automatically provide text alternatives for non-text content ("repair strings") during an authoring session or the following are both true: (Level A)
(a) No Generic or Irrelevant Strings: Generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g., the file name, file format) are not offered as repair strings; and
(b) Author Control: Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the suggested repair strings prior to insertion in the content.
Sueann Nichols Neutral, will accept consensus of the group

9. B.2.3.3

Current

B.2.3.3 Repair of Text Alternatives After Authoring Sessions: If the authoring tool attempts to automatically repair text alternatives for non-text content after an authoring session has ended, then the following are both true: (Level A)
(a) No Generic or Irrelevant Strings: Generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g., the file name, file format) are not used as repair strings; and
(b) Author Control: In the subsequent authoring session (if any), auto-generated text alternatives are indicated and authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the text alternatives.

Proposed

B.2.3.3 Repair of Text Alternatives After Authoring Sessions: The authoring tool does not attempt to automatically repair text alternatives for non-text content after an authoring session has ended or the following are both true: (Level A)
(a) No Generic or Irrelevant Strings: Generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g., the file name, file format) are not used as repair strings; and
(b) Author Control: In the subsequent authoring session (if any), auto-generated text alternatives are indicated and authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the text alternatives.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 7
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group 1
Suggest the following changes to the proposal (use the comment field)

Details

Responder B.2.3.3B.2.3.3
Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal
Alex Li Agree with the proposal
Tom Babinszki Agree with the proposal
Jan Richards Agree with the proposal
Alessandro Miele Agree with the proposal
Frederick Boland Agree with the proposal
Greg Pisocky Agree with the proposal
Sueann Nichols Neutral, will accept consensus of the group

10. B.4.1.2

Current

B.4.1.2 Option to Reactivate Features: If authors can turn off an accessible content support feature, then they can turn the feature back on. (Level A)

Proposed

B.4.1.2 Option to Reactivate Features: The authoring tool does not include the option to turn off its accessible content support features or the features can be turned back on. (Level A)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 7
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group
Suggest the following changes to the proposal (use the comment field) 1

Details

Responder B.4.1.2B.4.1.2
Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal
Alex Li Agree with the proposal
Tom Babinszki Agree with the proposal
Jan Richards Agree with the proposal
Alessandro Miele Agree with the proposal
Frederick Boland Agree with the proposal
Greg Pisocky Suggest the following changes to the proposal (use the comment field) B.4.1.2 Option to Reactivate Features: The authoring tool does not include the option to permanently turn off its accessible content support features. (Level A

Or

B.4.1.2 Option to Reactivate Features: The authoring tool does not include the option to turn off its accessible content support features or features which have been turned off can be restored at all times. (Level A
Sueann Nichols Agree with the proposal

11. B.4.1.3

Current

B.4.1.3 Feature Deactivation Warning: If authors turn off an accessible content support feature, then the authoring tool informs them that this may increase the risk of content accessibility problems (WCAG). (Level AA)

Proposed

B.4.1.3 Feature Deactivation Warning: The authoring tool does not include the option to turn off its accessible content support features or, when turning off these features, authors are informed that this may increase the risk of content accessibility problems (WCAG). (Level AA)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 6
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group 1
Suggest the following changes to the proposal (use the comment field) 1

Details

Responder B.4.1.3B.4.1.3
Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal
Alex Li Agree with the proposal
Tom Babinszki Agree with the proposal
Jan Richards Agree with the proposal
Alessandro Miele Agree with the proposal
Frederick Boland Agree with the proposal
Greg Pisocky Suggest the following changes to the proposal (use the comment field) B.4.1.3 Feature Deactivation Warning: The authoring tool does not include the option to turn off its accessible content support features or, if these features can be disabled, authors are informed that this may increase the risk of content accessibility problems (WCAG). (Level AA)
Sueann Nichols Neutral, will accept consensus of the group

More details on responses

  • Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 23, May 2013 at 16:23 (UTC)
  • Alex Li: last responded on 23, May 2013 at 16:56 (UTC)
  • Tom Babinszki: last responded on 23, May 2013 at 18:47 (UTC)
  • Jan Richards: last responded on 24, May 2013 at 15:29 (UTC)
  • Alessandro Miele: last responded on 26, May 2013 at 12:59 (UTC)
  • Frederick Boland: last responded on 28, May 2013 at 10:40 (UTC)
  • Greg Pisocky: last responded on 28, May 2013 at 14:05 (UTC)
  • Sueann Nichols: last responded on 10, June 2013 at 16:25 (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.