W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire EOWG Weekly Survey - 12 February 2016

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email addresses: shawn@w3.org,shadi+EOsurvey@w3.org

This questionnaire was open from 2016-02-12 to 2016-02-17.

8 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Resolution of 12 February 2016
  2. Relating Showcase videos to WCAG
  3. Accessibility Requirements for People with Low Vision - Before Draft Publication
  4. Accessibility Requirements for People with Low Vision – other comments

1. Resolution of 12 February 2016

summary | by responder | by choice

Please read the 12 Feb EOWG teleconference meeting minutes or summary. Indicate your approval or concerns with the resolution passed at that meeting.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with it! 5
I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolution as passed. 3
I have reviewed the minutes but have concerns with the Resolution and I explain them below.
I have not read the minutes yet, and have put the date for my review into the comments box.

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Resolution of 12 February 2016Comments
George Heake
  • I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolution as passed.
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with it!
Susan Hewitt
  • I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolution as passed.
James Green
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with it!
Brent Bakken
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with it!
Andrew Arch
  • I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolution as passed.
Kevin White
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with it!
Sharron Rush
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with it!

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with it!
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
  • James Green
  • Brent Bakken
  • Kevin White
  • Sharron Rush
I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolution as passed.
  • George Heake
  • Susan Hewitt
  • Andrew Arch
I have reviewed the minutes but have concerns with the Resolution and I explain them below.
I have not read the minutes yet, and have put the date for my review into the comments box.

2. Relating Showcase videos to WCAG

In the weekly EOWG teleconference, the question was raised about the relationship of the video topics to WCAG requirements for accessibility. Some topics, like keyboard accessibility, can be directly mapped to WCAG. For other topics, like plain language and large click areas, the relationship is implied rather than explicit. Please review the discussion in today's minutes and consider the importance of this question in determining whether (or not) to include the less directly referenced topics.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I strongly feel that topics should not be included if they are not directly referenced in WCAG. Please indicate which topics you feel should be removed and why.
Accessibility is the point, these are important issues that should be included with links to supporting WAI materials. 7
I have mixed feeling and have discussed them below.
I have no opinion and will pass on this question and go with the decision of the group.

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

Details

Responder Relating Showcase videos to WCAGComments
George Heake Accessibility is the point, these are important issues that should be included with links to supporting WAI materials.
Shawn Lawton Henry A specific thought I had: text customization is clearly covered in UAAG 2.0 and I think it should be included in the "showcase examples with videos". (It might also be covered more in a WCAG extension.)

[UAAG coverage includes "...The user can set text scale, color, style, line spacing, and font family globally (1.4.1, Level A)..." at <https://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG20/#gl-text-config> and there are a few more in other sections.]
Susan Hewitt Accessibility is the point, these are important issues that should be included with links to supporting WAI materials.
James Green Accessibility is the point, these are important issues that should be included with links to supporting WAI materials.
Brent Bakken Accessibility is the point, these are important issues that should be included with links to supporting WAI materials. Accessibility is about more than just the Guidelines. This is not a video showcase specifically about meeting WCAG 2.0 so I think there is affordance to address accessibility and usability.
Andrew Arch Accessibility is the point, these are important issues that should be included with links to supporting WAI materials.
Kevin White Accessibility is the point, these are important issues that should be included with links to supporting WAI materials.
Sharron Rush Accessibility is the point, these are important issues that should be included with links to supporting WAI materials.

3. Accessibility Requirements for People with Low Vision - Before Draft Publication

Is there anything that is important to address before FPWD publication?

If you put comments in GitHub, please label them "before FPWD".

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I reviewed or skimmed it and do not see any issues that need to be addressed before it is published as a draft. 6
I reviewed it and put comments in GitHub that need to be addressed before it is published as a draft.
I reviewed it and put Comments below that need to be addressed before it is published as a draft. 1
I have not yet gotten to it, and will by the date below.
I will pass on commenting this time. 1

Details

Responder Accessibility Requirements for People with Low Vision - Before Draft Publication
George Heake I reviewed or skimmed it and do not see any issues that need to be addressed before it is published as a draft.
Shawn Lawton Henry I reviewed or skimmed it and do not see any issues that need to be addressed before it is published as a draft.
Susan Hewitt I reviewed or skimmed it and do not see any issues that need to be addressed before it is published as a draft.
James Green I reviewed or skimmed it and do not see any issues that need to be addressed before it is published as a draft.
Brent Bakken I reviewed or skimmed it and do not see any issues that need to be addressed before it is published as a draft. Minor comments in GitHub. Nothing major to be done now.
Andrew Arch I reviewed it and put Comments below that need to be addressed before it is published as a draft. Editors' discretion, but should be considered:
3.4.3 'rivers of 'white' issue should be split off and placed under 3.2
consider cross referencing 3.4.6 with 3.6.2
Kevin White I will pass on commenting this time.
Sharron Rush I reviewed or skimmed it and do not see any issues that need to be addressed before it is published as a draft.

4. Accessibility Requirements for People with Low Vision – other comments

Feel free to share comments for the Low Vision Task Force to address after FPWD. The best place for comments is GitHub issues. Or you can put comments below.

Details

Responder Accessibility Requirements for People with Low Vision – other comments
George Heake
Shawn Lawton Henry
Susan Hewitt
James Green
Brent Bakken I have added a couple of issues in GitHub. I don't feel they need to be addressed before FPWD. One other question I had; will there be any techniques or recommendations spelled out as to how to address or implement the User Needs outlined in the green boxes? Will there be information about "what" to do?

Document looks good so far.
Andrew Arch 3.7.2 - some people also prefer to use their own text magnifier device than than browser based magnifications, especially for longer pages/documents (e.g. http://shop.rnib.org.uk/magnification.html?dir=desc&order=price#maincontent)
Kevin White
Sharron Rush

More details on responses

  • George Heake: last responded on 15, February 2016 at 11:30 (UTC)
  • Shawn Lawton Henry: last responded on 15, February 2016 at 13:43 (UTC)
  • Susan Hewitt: last responded on 16, February 2016 at 22:57 (UTC)
  • James Green: last responded on 17, February 2016 at 21:19 (UTC)
  • Brent Bakken: last responded on 17, February 2016 at 23:28 (UTC)
  • Andrew Arch: last responded on 18, February 2016 at 00:16 (UTC)
  • Kevin White: last responded on 18, February 2016 at 15:36 (UTC)
  • Sharron Rush: last responded on 18, February 2016 at 18:22 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Eric Velleman
  2. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  3. Sylvie Duchateau
  4. Kazuhito Kidachi
  5. Jedi Lin
  6. David Sloan
  7. Mary Jo Mueller
  8. Vicki Menezes Miller
  9. Reinaldo Ferraz
  10. Bill Kasdorf
  11. Cristina Mussinelli
  12. Kevin Rydberg
  13. Ahmath Bamba MBACKE
  14. Adina Halter
  15. Denis Boudreau
  16. Laura Keen
  17. Sarah Pulis
  18. Bill Tyler
  19. Gregorio Pellegrino
  20. Ruoxi Ran
  21. Jennifer Chadwick
  22. Sean Kelly
  23. Muhammad Saleem
  24. Sarah Lewthwaite
  25. Daniel Montalvo
  26. Mark Palmer
  27. Jade Matos Carew
  28. Sonsoles López Pernas
  29. Greta Krafsig
  30. Jason McKee
  31. Jayne Schurick
  32. Billie Johnston
  33. Michele Williams
  34. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  35. Brian Elton
  36. Julianna Rowsell
  37. Tabitha Mahoney
  38. Fred Edora
  39. Rabab Gomaa
  40. Marcelo Paiva
  41. Eloisa Guerrero
  42. Leonard Beasley
  43. Frankie Wolf
  44. Supriya Makude
  45. Aleksandar Cindrikj
  46. Angela Young

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.