W3C WBS Home

Results of Questionnaire AUWG Survey for 5 March 2012

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2012-02-29 to 2012-03-06.

6 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. A.1.1.1 Conditional Proposal
  2. A.1.2.1 Conditional Proposal
  3. A.1.2.2 Conditional Proposal
  4. A.3.1.5 Conditional Proposal
  5. A.3.1.6 Conditional Proposal
  6. A.3.2.3 Conditional Proposal
  7. A.3.3.1 Conditional Proposal
  8. A.3.5.1 Conditional Proposal
  9. A.4.1.2 Conditional Proposal
  10. B.1.1.1 Conditional Proposal
  11. B.1.1.2 Conditional Proposal
  12. B.2.3.1 Conditional Proposal
  13. B.2.3.2 Conditional Proposal
  14. B.2.3.4 Conditional Proposal
  15. B.3.1.2 Conditional Proposal
  16. B.3.1.3 Conditional Proposal
  17. B.3.1.4 Conditional Proposal
  18. B.3.1.5 Conditional Proposal
  19. B.4.1.5 Conditional Proposal

1. A.1.1.1 Conditional Proposal

Current A.1.1.1

A.1.1.1 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG): Web-based authoring tool user interfaces meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. (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 A.1.1.1

A.1.1.1 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG): If the authoring tool contains Web-based user interfaces, then the Web-based authoring tool user interfaces meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. (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
Accept the proposal 6
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 A.1.1.1 Conditional ProposalA.1.1.1 Comment
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alex Li Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal It would seem more straightforward to phrase without an 'if' statement, e.g. "Any web-based user interfaces in the authoring tool meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria."

However, that's a minor point (that applies to A.1.2.1 as well), if that doesn't make sense please ignore this comment.

2. A.1.2.1 Conditional Proposal

Current A.1.2.1

A.1.2.1 Accessibility Guidelines: Non-web-based authoring tool user interfaces follow user interface accessibility guidelines for the platform. (Level A)

Note: The (optional) explanation of conformance claim results should record the user interface accessibility guidelines that were followed.

Proposed A.1.2.1

A.1.2.1 Accessibility Guidelines: If the authoring tool contains non-web-based user interface, then the non-web-based authoring tool user interfaces follow user interface accessibility guidelines for the platform. (Level A)

Note: The (optional) explanation of conformance claim results should record the user interface accessibility guidelines that were followed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
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 A.1.2.1 Conditional ProposalA.1.2.1 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alex Li Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal (As per above, could this be: "Any non-web-based user interfaces in the authoring tool follow user interface accessibility guidelines for the platform.")

3. A.1.2.2 Conditional Proposal

Current A.1.2.2

A.1.2.2 Platform Accessibility Services: Non-web-based authoring tools implement communication with platform accessibility services. (Level A)

Note: The (optional) explanation of conformance claim results should record the platform accessibility service(s) that were implemented.

Proposed A.1.2.2

A.1.2.2 Platform Accessibility Services: If the authoring tool contains non-web-based user interface, then the non-web-based authoring tools implement communication with platform accessibility services. (Level A)

Note: The (optional) explanation of conformance claim results should record the platform accessibility service(s) that were implemented.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
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 A.1.2.2 Conditional ProposalA.1.2.2 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alex Li Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal (As per above, could this be: "Any non-web-based part of the authoring tool implement communication with platform accessibility services.")

4. A.3.1.5 Conditional Proposal

Current A.3.1.5

A.3.1.5 Customize Keyboard Access: Keyboard access to the authoring tool can be customized. (Level AAA)

Proposed A.3.1.5

A.3.1.5 Customize Keyboard Access: If the authoring tool includes keyboard commands, then those keyboard commands can be customized. (Level AAA)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
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 A.3.1.5 Conditional ProposalA.3.1.5 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alex Li Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal I assume this would not cover keyboard commands based on the parent software? e.g. browser based keyboard controls would not need to be customized, only tool-specific controls.

5. A.3.1.6 Conditional Proposal

Current A.3.1.6

A.3.1.6 Present Keyboard Commands: Provide a way for authors to determine the keyboard commands associated with authoring tool user interface components. (Level AAA)

Proposed A.3.1.6

A.3.1.6 Present Keyboard Commands: If the authoring tool includes keyboard commands, then provide a way for authors to determine the keyboard commands associated with authoring tool user interface components. (Level AAA)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
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 A.3.1.6 Conditional ProposalA.3.1.6 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alex Li Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal

6. A.3.2.3 Conditional Proposal

Current A.3.2.3

A.3.2.3 Static Pointing Device Targets: Authoring tool user interface components that accept pointing device input are either stationary or authors can pause the movement. (Level A)

Proposed A.3.2.3

A.3.2.3 Static Pointing Device Targets: If authoring tool user interface components that accept input also move, then authors can pause the movement. (Level A)

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

Details

Responder A.3.2.3 Conditional ProposalA.3.2.3 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alex Li The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) Maybe there's a copy and paste error. But the condition does not make sense.
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal

7. A.3.3.1 Conditional Proposal

Current A.3.3.1

A.3.3.1 Static View Option: Editing-views that render visual time-based content can be paused and can be set to not play automatically. (Level A)

Proposed A.3.3.1

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

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
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 A.3.3.1 Conditional ProposalA.3.3.1 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alex Li Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal

8. A.3.5.1 Conditional Proposal

Current A.3.5.1

A.3.5.1 Text Search: Editing-views enable text search, such that all of the following are true: (Level AA)
(a) All Editable Text: Any text content that is editable by the editing-view is searchable (including alternative content); and
(b) Match: Matching results can be made visible to authors and given focus; and
(c) No Match: Authors are informed when no results are found; and
(d) Two-way: The search can be made forwards or backwards.

Proposed A.3.5.1

A.3.5.1 Text Search: If the authoring tool provides an editing-view of text-based content, editing-views enable text search, such that all of the following are true: (Level AA)
(a) All Editable Text: Any text content that is editable by the editing-view is searchable (including alternative content); and
(b) Match: Matching results can be made visible to authors and given focus; and
(c) No Match: Authors are informed when no results are found; and
(d) Two-way: The search can be made forwards or backwards.

Summary

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

Details

Responder A.3.5.1 Conditional ProposalA.3.5.1 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alex Li Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Recommend changes (see comments field) This appears to be missing a joining word, which of these is correct?

And: "If the authoring tool provides an editing-view of text-based content and editing-views enable text search, such that all of the following are true:"
Then: "If the authoring tool provides an editing-view of text-based content then editing-views enable text search, such that all of the following are true:"

Two commas in the sentence made it unclear, to me.

9. A.4.1.2 Conditional Proposal

Current A.4.1.2

A.4.1.2 Settings Change Confirmation: Mechanisms for changing authoring tool user interface settings can reverse the setting changes or the authoring tool requires author confirmation to proceed. (Level A)

Proposed A.4.1.2

A.4.1.2 Settings Change Confirmation: If the authoring tool provides mechanisms for changing authoring tool user interface, those mechanisms can reverse the setting changes or the authoring tool requires author confirmation to proceed. (Level A)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
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 A.4.1.2 Conditional ProposalA.4.1.2 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal THEN those mechanisms
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alex Li Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal Perhaps:
"If the authoring tool provides mechanisms for changing the user interface, those mechanisms can reverse the changes, or the authoring tool requires author confirmation to proceed."

10. B.1.1.1 Conditional Proposal

Current B.1.1.1

B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Generation After Authoring Sessions (WCAG): Authors have the default option that, when web content is automatically generated for publishing after the end of an authoring session, it is 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)

Proposed B.1.1.1

B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Generation After Authoring Sessions (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides the functionalities of generating web content automatically and a default option, authors have the default option that, when web content is automatically generated for publishing after the end of an authoring session, it is 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)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 3
Recommend changes (see comments field) 3
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

Details

Responder B.1.1.1 Conditional ProposalB.1.1.1 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Recommend changes (see comments field) If the authoring tool provides the functionality of generating web content automatically after the end of an authoring session, authors have the default option of specifying that the content be accessible web content (WCAG).
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alex Li Recommend changes (see comments field) There are two conditions--automatic content generation and some sort option with default selection.
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Recommend changes (see comments field) I think there's an extra 'default option' in there? Should it be:
"If the authoring tool provides functionality for generating web content automatically then authors have the default option that, when web content is automatically generated for publishing after the end of an authoring session, it is accessible web content (WCAG)."

11. B.1.1.2 Conditional Proposal

Current B.1.1.2

B.1.1.2 Content Auto-Generation During Authoring Sessions (WCAG): Authors have the default option that, when web content is automatically generated during an authoring session, then one of the following is true: (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)
(a) Accessible: The content is accessible web content (WCAG) without author input; or
(b) Prompting: During the automatic generation process, authors are prompted for any required accessibility information (WCAG); or
(c) Automatic Checking: After the automatic generation process, accessibility checking is automatically performed; or
(d) Checking Suggested: After the automatic generation process, the authoring tool prompts authors to perform accessibility checking.

Note 1: Automatic generation includes automatically selecting templates for authors.
Note 2: 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.

Proposed B.1.1.2

B.1.1.2 Content Auto-Generation During Authoring Sessions (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides the functionalities of generating web content automatically and a default option, authors have the default option that, when web content is automatically generated during an authoring session, then one of the following is true: (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)
(a) Accessible: The content is accessible web content (WCAG) without author input; or
(b) Prompting: During the automatic generation process, authors are prompted for any required accessibility information (WCAG); or
(c) Automatic Checking: After the automatic generation process, accessibility checking is automatically performed; or
(d) Checking Suggested: After the automatic generation process, the authoring tool prompts authors to perform accessibility checking.

Note 1: Automatic generation includes automatically selecting templates for authors.
Note 2: 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.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 4
Recommend changes (see comments field) 2
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group

Details

Responder B.1.1.2 Conditional ProposalB.1.1.2 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Recommend changes (see comments field) If the authoring tool provides the functionality of generating web content automatically during an authoring session, then one of the following is true:
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alex Li Recommend changes (see comments field) similar to B.1.1.1
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal As per B.1.1.1, "provides the functionalities of" sounds odd, should it be "provides functionality for"?

Also, now I read the extra 'default option' as intentional and part of the 'if' statement. However, I'm not clear what it's trying to cover.

If something auto-generates web content, it either has options (in which case there can be a default), or it doesn't have options (in what case there is only a default option!).

Therefore the case where there isn't another option IS the default option, so we don't need that part of the clause.

Therefore:
"If the authoring tool provides functionality for generating web content automatically, authors have the default option that, when web content is automatically generated during an authoring session one of the following is true:"

12. B.2.3.1 Conditional Proposal

Current B.2.3.1

B.2.3.1 Alternative Content is Editable (WCAG): Authors are able to modify programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content. (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.2.3.1

B.2.3.1 Alternative Content is Editable (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides the functionality to add non-text content, authors are able to modify programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content. (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
Accept the proposal 6
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 B.2.3.1 Conditional ProposalB.2.3.1 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alex Li Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal

13. B.2.3.2 Conditional Proposal

Current B.2.3.2

B.2.3.2 Conditions on Automated Suggestions: During the authoring session, the authoring tool can only automatically suggest programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content under the following conditions: (Level A)
(a) Author Control: Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the suggested text alternatives prior to insertion; and
(b) Relevant Sources: The suggested text alternatives are only derived from sources designed to fulfill the same purpose (e.g., suggesting the value of an image's "description" metadata field as a long description).

Proposed B.2.3.2

B.2.3.2 Conditions on Automated Suggestions: If the authoring tool automatically suggests text alternatives for non-text content during the authoring session, then the text alternatives may only be suggested under the following conditions: (Level A)
(a) Author Control: Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the suggested text alternatives prior to insertion; and
(b) Relevant Sources: The suggested text alternatives are only derived from sources designed to fulfill the same purpose (e.g., suggesting the value of an image's "description" metadata field as a long description).

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
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 B.2.3.2 Conditional ProposalB.2.3.2 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alex Li Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal

14. B.2.3.4 Conditional Proposal

Current B.2.3.4

B.2.3.4 Save for Reuse: When authors enter programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content, both of the following are true: (Level AAA)
(a) Save and Suggest: the text alternatives are automatically saved and suggested by the authoring tool, if the same non-text content is reused; and
(b) Edit Option: the author has the option to edit or delete the saved text alternatives.

Proposed B.2.3.4

B.2.3.4 Save for Reuse: If the authoring tool provides the functionality to add non-text content, when authors enter programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content, both of the following are true: (Level AAA)
(a) Save and Suggest: the text alternatives are automatically saved and suggested by the authoring tool, if the same non-text content is reused; and
(b) Edit Option: the author has the option to edit or delete the saved text alternatives.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
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 B.2.3.4 Conditional ProposalB.2.3.4 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alex Li Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal

15. B.3.1.2 Conditional Proposal

Current B.3.1.2

B.3.1.2 Help Authors Decide: For checks that require authors to decide whether a potential web content accessibility problem is correctly identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), instructions are provided from the check that describe how to decide. (Level A)

Proposed B.3.1.2

B.3.1.2 Help Authors Decide: If the authoring tool provides checks that require authors to decide whether a potential web content accessibility problem is correctly identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), instructions are provided from the check that describe how to decide. (Level A)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
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 B.3.1.2 Conditional ProposalB.3.1.2 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal THEN instructions
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alex Li Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal

16. B.3.1.3 Conditional Proposal

Current B.3.1.3

B.3.1.3 Help Authors Locate: For checks that require authors to decide whether a potential web content accessibility problem is correctly identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), the relevant content is identified to the authors. (Level A)

Proposed B.3.1.3

B.3.1.3 Help Authors Locate: If the authoring tool provides checks that require authors to decide whether a potential web content accessibility problem is correctly identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), the relevant content is identified to the authors. (Level A)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
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 B.3.1.3 Conditional ProposalB.3.1.3 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal THEN the
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alex Li Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal

17. B.3.1.4 Conditional Proposal

Current B.3.1.4

B.3.1.4 Status Report: Authors can receive an accessibility status report based on the results of the accessibility checks. (Level AA)

Note: The format of the accessibility status report is not specified and they might include a listing of problems detected or a WCAG 2.0 conformance level, etc..

Proposed B.3.1.4

B.3.1.4 Status Report: If the authoring tool provides checks, authors can receive an accessibility status report based on the results of the accessibility checks. (Level AA)

Note: The format of the accessibility status report is not specified and they might include a listing of problems detected or a WCAG 2.0 conformance level, etc..

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
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 B.3.1.4 Conditional ProposalB.3.1.4 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alex Li Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal

18. B.3.1.5 Conditional Proposal

Current B.3.1.5

B.3.1.5 Programmatic Association of Results: Authoring tools can programmatically associate accessibility checking results with the web content that was checked. (Level AA)

Proposed B.3.1.5

B.3.1.5 Programmatic Association of Results: If the authoring tool provide checks, the authoring tool can programmatically associate accessibility checking results with the web content that was checked. (Level AA)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
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 B.3.1.5 Conditional ProposalB.3.1.5 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alex Li Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal

19. B.4.1.5 Conditional Proposal

Current B.4.1.5

B.4.1.5 Feature Prominence: Accessible content support features are at least as prominent as features related to either invalid markup, syntax errors, spelling errors or grammar errors. (Level AA)

Proposed B.4.1.5

B.4.1.5 Feature Prominence: If accessible content support features are provided, accessible content support features are at least as prominent as features related to either invalid markup, syntax errors, spelling errors or grammar errors. (Level AA)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept the proposal 6
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 B.4.1.5 Conditional ProposalB.4.1.5 Comments
Jeanne F Spellman Accept the proposal
Jan Richards Accept the proposal
Alessandro Miele Accept the proposal
Alex Li Accept the proposal
Frederick Boland Accept the proposal
Alastair Campbell Accept the proposal

More details on responses

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Jutta Treviranus <jtreviranus@faculty.ocadu.ca>
  2. Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
  3. Roberto Scano <w3c-rep@iwanet.org>
  4. Andrew Ronksley <andrew.ronksley@rnib.org.uk>
  5. Sueann Nichols <ssnichol@us.ibm.com>
  6. Cherie Ekholm <cheriee@exchange.microsoft.com>
  7. Tom Babinszki <tbabins@us.ibm.com>

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


Maintained by Laurent Carcone, from a development by Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (dom@w3.org) on an original design by Michael Sperberg-McQueen $Id: showv.php3,v 1.129 2015/07/01 16:13:23 kahan Exp $. Please send bug reports and request for enhancements to lcarcone@w3.org with w3t-sys@w3.org copied (if your mail client supports it, send mail directly to the right persons)