W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire COGA Response to EOWG Review of "Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities"

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

This questionnaire was open from 2021-03-12 to 2021-03-22.

11 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. About this survey [updated]
  2. Unaddressed Issues [UPDATED question]
  3. Acceptance of Issue #221 [NEW question]
  4. Acceptance of Issue #217 [NEW question]
  5. Acceptance of Issue #202 [NEW question]
  6. Acceptance of Issue #205 [NEW question]
  7. Review level:
  8. Acceptance of Issue #206
  9. Acceptance of Issue #207
  10. Acceptance of Issue #208
  11. Acceptance of Issue #209
  12. Acceptance of Issue #210
  13. Acceptance of Issue #211
  14. Acceptance of Issue #212
  15. Acceptance of Issue #213
  16. Acceptance of Issue #214
  17. Acceptance of Issue #215
  18. Acceptance of Issue #216
  19. Acceptance of Issue #218
  20. Acceptance of Issue #219
  21. Acceptance of Issue #220
  22. Acceptance of Issue #222
  23. Acceptance of Issue #223
  24. Acceptance of Issue #235
  25. Other comments?

1. About this survey [updated]

The current draft version of the Working Group Note Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities is posted. COGA has given consideration to our comments and EOWG has submitted iterative feedback.

You can review COGA TF responses to EOWG comments in either:

Please review COGA's responses and indicate within this survey if you accept how the the issues were addressed or have any concerns.

Note:

  • The next few questions were updated or added on Thursday 18 March.
  • Please only include comments in this survey that are related to previous comments or the new wording. If you have new unrelated comments, please open a new GitHub issue in the COGA space and note that it is for next revision.

Please answer the questions below from the perspective that EOWG's role in this review has been to focus on the understandability, approachability, ease-of-use, and integration with other WAI resources, per EOWG Technical Document Review guidance.


Optional: Additional background material if helpful:

Details

Responder
Vicki Menezes Miller
Sharron Rush
Howard Kramer
Estella Oncins
Kevin White
Laura Keen
Mark Palmer
Jason McKee
Jennifer Chadwick
Sylvie Duchateau
Shawn Lawton Henry

2. Unaddressed Issues [UPDATED question]

[Original question with minor correction: The EOWG summary of comment history was provided to document COGA overall response to originally submitted EO comments. Some EOWG comments were not addressed in COGA's e-mail reply. What steps should EO take related to this?]

[Below added on Thursday 18 March: (Results reviewers please note that survey answers may be from before this update.)]

These were missing from COGA's disposition of comments. We added them to this survey:

  • 221 on headings
  • 217 on icons
  • 202 remove business case info

These were missing from COGA's disposition of EOWG comments, and we note:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept that these will not be addressed 2
Accept for current publication but create new GitHub issues to address them in future iterations. 3
Do not accept for current publication until these issue are more adequately addressed (comments below) 3
I did not read the summary document and have no opinion. 1
Abstain for other reasons. 1
I'm confused or just want to undo another selection.

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

Details

Responder Unaddressed Issues [UPDATED question]Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Do not accept for current publication until these issue are more adequately addressed (comments below) Before this document is published, I hope that COGA can consider the comments/suggestions from EOWG in particular in the areas where a strong indication has been expressed by "Do not accept for curent publication..."
Sharron Rush Do not accept for current publication until these issue are more adequately addressed (comments below) Can COGA please recognize those previously submitted and as yet unaddressed issues from the 2020 submission of comments? Not that suggestions must be incorporated but they do need to be acknowledged and some indication given about how they will be addressed. Thank you.
Howard Kramer Accept that these will not be addressed
Estella Oncins Accept for current publication but create new GitHub issues to address them in future iterations.
Kevin White Do not accept for current publication until these issue are more adequately addressed (comments below) 221 and 217 are ok for release and later work. 202 is not.
Laura Keen Accept for current publication but create new GitHub issues to address them in future iterations.
Mark Palmer Accept that these will not be addressed
Jason McKee Abstain for other reasons.
Jennifer Chadwick Accept for current publication but create new GitHub issues to address them in future iterations. My answer is the same for the update. Thanks!
Sylvie Duchateau I did not read the summary document and have no opinion.
Shawn Lawton Henry

3. Acceptance of Issue #221 [NEW question]

GitHub comment 221:
Headings repetition

COGA responded
[ COGA did not respond to this issue, yet we think they changed the headings. ]

Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 4
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions 2
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below)
Abstain 4

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

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #221 [NEW question]Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Accept
Sharron Rush Abstain
Howard Kramer Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions Answer depends on whether they changed headings or not. :-)
Estella Oncins Accept
Kevin White Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions I don't think the headings have been changed. The structure is still broadly:

h2 User Stories
h3 Objective 1: Help Users Understand What Things are and How to Use Them
...
h2 Design Guide
h3 Objective 1: Help Users Understand What Things are and How to Use Them
…


Difficult one to deal with though. The information architecture either splits out by Objective at h2 and user stories/design patterns at h3 or the other way around. Either way there are repeated headings.

My gut feel would be to group them primarily around the objective. Then you can explain the objective, introduce the user stories, and introduce the design approaches. But that simply suits my way of thinking.
Laura Keen Accept
Mark Palmer Abstain
Jason McKee Abstain
Jennifer Chadwick Accept
Sylvie Duchateau Abstain
Shawn Lawton Henry

4. Acceptance of Issue #217 [NEW question]

GitHub comment 217:
Icons in Summary

COGA responded
COGA did not respond to this issue, yet they did to a related GitHub comment 231: The updated icons are at https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/consistency_checks/content-usable/index.html

Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 2
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions 2
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below)
Abstain 6

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

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #217 [NEW question]Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Abstain
Sharron Rush Abstain I don't process icons very well, this is not something I can relate to.
Howard Kramer Abstain
Estella Oncins Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions While icons have been modified it is not clear that the new icons are representative enough.
Kevin White Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions
Laura Keen Accept
Mark Palmer Abstain
Jason McKee Abstain
Jennifer Chadwick Accept
Sylvie Duchateau Abstain
Shawn Lawton Henry

5. Acceptance of Issue #202 [NEW question]

GitHub comment 202:
"Rationale: ... Suggestion: Remove the Appendix: Business Considerations and The Aging Population as a Market."

COGA responded:
COGA did not respond to this issue, yet they did to a related GitHub comment 208: You can view the changes at https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/consistency_checks/content-usable/index.html#appendix-considerations-for-different-contexts-and-policies

Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 2
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions 2
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) 2
Abstain 4

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

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #202 [NEW question]Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) I still support the idea of removing the Appendix as given in EOWG rationale below:

Rationale: This section was confusing to most reviewers. First of all, it is lengthy and complex. (The reading grade level is 15-18.) Reviewers noticed significant repetition and lack of focus. Several questioned the relevance of this content to our understood target audience for this document. While the points are valid, the section does not seem to fit. Most reviewers did not find a logical connection to the other content. As a result, EO proposes to strengthen the policy information around COGA issues in the existing WAI resources and to include a shorter statement within this document that points to it.

EOWG input:
Remove Appendix B: Considerations for Uptake in Different Contexts and Policies.
Sharron Rush Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions
Howard Kramer Abstain
Estella Oncins Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions
Kevin White Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) I agree with the comment in the GitHub issue. This document should focus solely on the barriers faced by people with cognitive differences or impairments, or learning difficulties. It does not need to make the business case for accessibility - that is well articulated elsewhere and much more finable.
Laura Keen Accept
Mark Palmer Abstain
Jason McKee Abstain
Jennifer Chadwick Accept
Sylvie Duchateau Abstain
Shawn Lawton Henry

6. Acceptance of Issue #205 [NEW question]

GitHub comment 205:
"Rationale:... Suggestion: Remove the sections 2.3 Building the User into the Development Process and remove sections 5.1-5.4 of Usability Testing, Focus Groups and Feedback"
EOWG comments in later survey

COGA responded
The COGA task force feels strongly that there is great value in these sections and decided not to remove them. After discussion with EO chairs and reviewing the detailed comments from a follow up survey with EO, we rewrote the content to address the primary areas of concern such as referring to finding people with cognitive disabilities as "easy", more clearly framing the section. and linking to the EO resource on this topic. The updated section can be reviewed at https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/consistency_checks/content-usable/index.html#Building_in_the_user

Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 2
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions 2
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) 2
Abstain 4

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

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #205 [NEW question]Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below)
Sharron Rush Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions
Howard Kramer Abstain
Estella Oncins Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions
Kevin White Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) * 5.1 "You probably know people with age related forgetfulness, or a cognitive and learning disability. Asking them to help find out if your design is usable is a good first step." - This is statement doesn't really stand up to scrutiny and doesn't highlight the legal requirements that may be necessary when recruiting for user research. I would suggest removing this.
* 5.2 "Social media groups can be an easy and convenient resource." - This is a misleading sentence. Many social media groups are their to support their members, not provide a convenient recruitment pool. They are useful but I think the wording is inappropriate here. I would go with something like "Social media groups can be a useful resource.".
* 5.2 The purpose of the section beginning "People with acquired cognitive issues..." is unclear. It is not about finding user research participants so not sure what it is doing.
* 5.3 Sorry, but 'consent' has a specific meaning within the context of GDPR and is not necessarily the Legal Basis that should be used when seeking permission to process participant data. Also, GDPR requires that the participant is aware of more than just the items specified
* 5.4 I still think this is too long and too general.

My main and significant concern with section 5 in particular is that the audience being discussed can be extremely vulnerable. It takes an experienced user research team to work with these groups and the introductory nature of section 5 does not provide adequate safeguards against the risk of someone inexperienced picking up this material and thinking they can conduct research with these people.

I would reiterate what I have said previously; focusing on the specific aspects of working with this group of users not on creating a general UR resource.
Laura Keen Accept
Mark Palmer Abstain
Jason McKee Abstain
Jennifer Chadwick Accept
Sylvie Duchateau Abstain
Shawn Lawton Henry

7. Review level:

summary | by responder | by choice

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I reviewed it thoroughly. 4
I reviewed some sections thoroughly, and skimmed some sections. 6
I skimmed it. 1
I didn't get to it, and pass on this review.

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Review level:Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller
  • I reviewed it thoroughly.
 Note: I reviewed only those points which were indicated in this survey.
Sharron Rush
  • I reviewed it thoroughly.
Howard Kramer
  • I reviewed some sections thoroughly, and skimmed some sections.
Estella Oncins
  • I reviewed some sections thoroughly, and skimmed some sections.
Kevin White
  • I reviewed some sections thoroughly, and skimmed some sections.
 I reviewed the sections related to the issues but didn't go further than that.
Laura Keen
  • I reviewed some sections thoroughly, and skimmed some sections.
Mark Palmer
  • I reviewed some sections thoroughly, and skimmed some sections.
Jason McKee
  • I reviewed it thoroughly.
Jennifer Chadwick
  • I reviewed some sections thoroughly, and skimmed some sections.
 I'm very excited by this resource from the COGA team. The clarity of the content and structure is highly refreshing; it's an easy read, easy to follow and very easy to see lift knowledge, guidance and practical applications directly from this resource.

There is nothing I would add or change, given that the COGA team are the more knowledgeable experts on the critical points and guidelines to be included. What's most important to me is to be able to draw from these types of resources to provide training and guidance to practitioners (UX designers, development, content authors, visual designers). I will find this very straightforward. Practitioners will be able to digest this information on their own, and understand very clearly what people with cognitive needs require. One critical advantage: User Stories. I regularly work with teams to create these so practitioners can conduct website review sessions, co-design sessions. This provides ready-made examples that are accurate and reliable.
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I skimmed it.
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • I reviewed it thoroughly.
 I continue to have concerns in some of the sections.

I think most of my concerns are already noted by others in this and in other WG's surveys.

Therefore, I'll Abstain.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I reviewed it thoroughly.
  • Vicki Menezes Miller
  • Sharron Rush
  • Jason McKee
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
I reviewed some sections thoroughly, and skimmed some sections.
  • Howard Kramer
  • Estella Oncins
  • Kevin White
  • Laura Keen
  • Mark Palmer
  • Jennifer Chadwick
I skimmed it.
  • Sylvie Duchateau
I didn't get to it, and pass on this review.

8. Acceptance of Issue #206

GitHub comment:
For sections 5.5.1-5.5.8., make it clearer that they directly relate to a specific one of the “Objectives”.

COGA responded:
We tried adding content to make this clearer but found it made reading more difficult. We made sure the section titles map closely to the objective names.

Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 4
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions 3
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) 1
Abstain 2

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

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #206 Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions - Still feel that this could be put into an Appendix
- Maybe in the interactive version, links to the Objectives could be made.
Sharron Rush Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions
Howard Kramer Accept
Estella Oncins Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions While a clear connection with objectives has been established it is not clear which methodology should be followed and how it will fit in the overall process. If COGA strongly feels that this section should be included maybe add it as appendix. Links to the objectives should be added.
Kevin White Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) While these do relate to the objectives the probes are general. I don't know that they add anything for the reader beyond what is outlined in the objectives themselves. I don't think this is about adding more but about reducing it and making it more focussed on how the needs of the user group might be explored in relation to the objective.

If this content is to be retained then I think it really needs to explore specific needs/challenges faced by the targeted audience.
Laura Keen Accept
Mark Palmer Accept
Jason McKee Abstain
Jennifer Chadwick Accept
Sylvie Duchateau Abstain
Shawn Lawton Henry

9. Acceptance of Issue #207

GitHub comment:
Link to existing EOWG resources

COGA responded:
We have linked to these resources.

Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 10
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below)
Abstain 1

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #207Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Accept
Sharron Rush Accept
Howard Kramer Accept
Estella Oncins Accept
Kevin White Accept
Laura Keen Accept
Mark Palmer Accept
Jason McKee Accept
Jennifer Chadwick Accept
Sylvie Duchateau Accept
Shawn Lawton Henry Abstain I see that one of the resources is linked. I could not find the other two resources mentioned or linked.
I didn't look if any of the suggested text was included.

(I suspect that others answering the survey saw: "COGA responded: We have linked to these resources." And did not check if they were or were not actually included. Or, if any of the suggested text was included.)

10. Acceptance of Issue #208

GitHub comment:
Remove Appendix B, redundant and irrelevant to the topic.

COGA responded:
The COGA taskforce feels strongly that there is great value in this section and decided not to remove it. However we trimmed it down, combined it with the business section, and linked to the broader EO resource. You can view the changes

Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 5
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. 1
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) 3
Abstain 1

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

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #208Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) - I still feel that Appendix B does not add value to this document, which is a pity.
- The title "Considerations for Different Contexts and Policies" is too vague.
- The first sentence of the Appendix reads "This Appendix provides guidance and considerations for building a policy or requirements for web content to meet the needs of individuals with cognitive and learning disabilities." - I don't feel that I am getting guidance on how to build a policy.
- The link to the WAI resource is a key resource which provides full and detailed guidance is mentioned and linked up so I feel that the information in this Appendix needs improvement (if it must be kept) but as a few paragraphs within the body of the document and not as a whole Appendix
- The section "Business Considerations" seems to be out of place; the references made to figures quoted in this section should be added.
Sharron Rush Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions.
Howard Kramer Accept
Estella Oncins Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) Not clear which is the scope of this section as building up a policy is a broader scope outside people with cognitive and learning disabilities. References provided to figures should be properly documented. References to other W3C/WAI documents should also be provided.
Kevin White Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) B.1 Is titled 'Why make a policy?' but the latter half of the sections talks about how to make a policy and also conflates plan and policy.
B.1 The last section giving examples doesn't seem to give examples
B.2 Can the 7.1 trillion dollar figure be evidenced?
B.2 I am not sure the second point about underserved end-users makes sense.
B.2 I am slightly wary of the market and disposable income figures. There is a lot more tied up in this such as life expectancy and income distribution. The figures on task completion may also be slightly misleading as it isn't necessarily the case that poor task completion is due to any accessibility or cognitive issue.
B.2 If this were to be retained then research should ideally be linked.

Overall I think this whole section focuses on older adults and only presents an economic case. I am not sure that it adds
Laura Keen Accept
Mark Palmer Accept
Jason McKee Accept
Jennifer Chadwick Accept
Sylvie Duchateau Abstain
Shawn Lawton Henry

11. Acceptance of Issue #209

GitHub comment:
Provide the information in a more consumable way than a single TR doc

COGA responded:
COGA will continue working with Shadi and Hidde on the interactive web version. We will leave this issue open for the future.

Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 8
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. 1
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below)
Abstain 1

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

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #209Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Accept
Sharron Rush Accept
Howard Kramer Accept
Estella Oncins Accept
Kevin White Accept
Laura Keen Accept
Mark Palmer Abstain
Jason McKee Accept
Jennifer Chadwick Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions.
Sylvie Duchateau Accept
Shawn Lawton Henry

12. Acceptance of Issue #210

GitHub comment:
Rewrite section 2.1 “How to Use this Document” to provide guidance for designers, developers, and writers on how to use the document.

COGA responded:
We have updated this section and added a link to the appendix some members found more helpful.

Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 8
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions.
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below)
Abstain 2

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

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #210Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Accept The links to the Appendix A need to be added.
Sharron Rush Abstain
Howard Kramer Accept
Estella Oncins Accept Make sure to add the missing links.
Kevin White Accept
Laura Keen Accept Add hyperlinks to Appendix A:

>> Mappings of objectives, user stories, patterns and personas are available in Appendix A. This provides a way to understand how to address the objective and why it is important. Some people may prefer to start with Appendix A.
Mark Palmer Abstain
Jason McKee Accept
Jennifer Chadwick Accept
Sylvie Duchateau Accept
Shawn Lawton Henry

13. Acceptance of Issue #211

GitHub comment:
Move “Following the advice in this document as much as possible will be particularly valuable for Web content and applications that address: … [list]” to the main part of the Introduction or a separate section.

COGA responded:
This has been done.

Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 9
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions.
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below)
Abstain 1

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

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #211Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Accept
Sharron Rush Accept Thank you
Howard Kramer Accept
Estella Oncins Accept
Kevin White Accept
Laura Keen Accept
Mark Palmer Abstain
Jason McKee Accept
Jennifer Chadwick Accept
Sylvie Duchateau Accept
Shawn Lawton Henry

14. Acceptance of Issue #212

GitHub comment:
In the Introduction, add a few sentences that more clearly and succinctly provides guidance on using this document in policy and other contexts

COGA responded:
We have made this change. Please see How to Use This Document

Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 9
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions.
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) 1
Abstain

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

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #212Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) Better,but still some slight improvements to the last part of Section 2.1 are required, in particular:
- the sentence "This should help different teams achieve the objectives while supporting the way they work. " is confusing.
- In the set of 7 points which follow, the following need some re-wording:
- point No. 5 (Involving the user, the design guide...") needs to be re-phrased.
- point No. 6 and 7 could possibly be combined.
- if point 6 and 7 cannot be combined, then maybe point No. 7 could be re-phrased so that it doesn't start for the third time "Design patterns..."
Sharron Rush Accept
Howard Kramer Accept
Estella Oncins Accept
Kevin White Accept
Laura Keen Accept
Mark Palmer Accept
Jason McKee Accept
Jennifer Chadwick Accept
Sylvie Duchateau Accept
Shawn Lawton Henry

15. Acceptance of Issue #213

GitHub comment:
Summary, Appendix A: Mapping User Needs, Persona and Patterns, Introduction, Objectives

COGA responded:
COGA experimented with moving the appendix up but it made the document difficult to read. We instead link to it. Please see How to Use This Document

Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 4
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. 3
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below)
Abstain 3

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

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #213Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Accept Accepted with regret. It's a pity that this is not in the body of the document. It is so useful.
Sharron Rush Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions.
Howard Kramer Accept
Estella Oncins Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. Appendix A is much clear and helpful than 5.5.1-5.5.8.
Kevin White Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. I think this is a great example of where the TR format is not helping the delivery of the content. Appendix A is an excellent navigation tool for the rest of the content. Burying it in an Appendix makes it less likely to be found and the value of it lost to an extent.

Having said that, if I share the resource, I would be pointing people to the Appendix as their starting point with a brief introduction to what the Objectives are -probably the Summary and then skip to Appendix A.
Laura Keen Accept Add hyperlinks to Appendix A:

>> Mappings of objectives, user stories, patterns and personas are available in Appendix A. This provides a way to understand how to address the objective and why it is important. Some people may prefer to start with Appendix A.
Mark Palmer Abstain
Jason McKee Abstain
Jennifer Chadwick Accept
Sylvie Duchateau Abstain
Shawn Lawton Henry

16. Acceptance of Issue #214

GitHub comment:
Put the Introduction first

COGA responded:
We have reworked the introduction per other suggestions. The Abstract, Status and Summary must come before the introduction. The introduction is the first part of the main content. We have added "(Easy to Understand Language)" as part of the Summary header to reduce confusion. Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 5
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. 2
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) 2
Abstain 1

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

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #214Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) - The title of the summary "Summary (Easy to Understand Language)" is confusing and narrowly covers the topics which follow.
- For this type of document, and the way the icons are presented, I think it is better to first have an Introduction, and then the set of icons and explanations.
Thus, could it be envisaged to move it from the top summary level to after the Introduction, with the title "Objectives and Key Topics" because that is what they are?
- I would remove 2.1.1 "Testing Each Pattern" - it is very confusing here.
Sharron Rush Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions.
Howard Kramer Accept
Estella Oncins Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. Using 'Easy to Understand Language' as part of a heading might lead to confusion as readers might think that the text is about Easy to Understand Language'. It might be helpful to add a sentence in the introduction stating that the summary has been written following Easy to Understand Language principles.
Kevin White Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) I may have missed it previously but the Summary includes Test with real users! with the other Objective. This isn't really on of the COGA design Objectives and is more of a general good practice approach. Not sure why it is there.

Not sure that "(Easy to understand language)" addresses the issue. If anything, it suggests that there are elements of the document that are not easy to understand language.

Overall I am not sure what this solution is solving.
Laura Keen Accept
Mark Palmer Accept
Jason McKee Abstain
Jennifer Chadwick Accept
Sylvie Duchateau Accept
Shawn Lawton Henry

17. Acceptance of Issue #215

GitHub comment:
Change “Summary” to something like “Objectives and Overview”.

COGA responded:
The summary is the easy read portion of this document. We have added "(Easy to Understand Language)" as part of the Summary header to reduce confusion.
Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 4
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. 2
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) 3
Abstain 1

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

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #215Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) Already explained above. The new title "Summary (Easy to Understand Language)" adds confusion.
The issue has not been addressed adequately.
Sharron Rush Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. One disconnect for me is that what is called a Summary is not really a summary. It leads to confusion about what to expect from Summary vs Introduction. The addition of (Easy...Language) doesn't seem to address that.
Howard Kramer Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions.
Estella Oncins Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) Not clear what this section adds.
Kevin White Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) See above.

I think the problem is that 'Objectives' is introduced as an idea but not explained. 'Objectives' has a particular meaning in this document and it would benefit from being explained as quickly as possible and used consistently throughout.
Laura Keen Accept I prefer Objectives and Overview
Mark Palmer Abstain
Jason McKee Accept
Jennifer Chadwick Accept
Sylvie Duchateau Accept
Shawn Lawton Henry

18. Acceptance of Issue #216

GitHub comment:
In the tables, also link the User Stories and Design Patterns

COGA responded:
This is one of the last steps in preparing the document and will be done before publication.
Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 9
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. 1
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below)
Abstain

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

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #216Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Accept
Sharron Rush Accept
Howard Kramer Accept
Estella Oncins Accept
Kevin White Accept
Laura Keen Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions.
Mark Palmer Accept
Jason McKee Accept
Jennifer Chadwick Accept
Sylvie Duchateau Accept
Shawn Lawton Henry

19. Acceptance of Issue #218

GitHub comment:
Improve readability to have the hanging indent after that images.

COGA responded:
This is done.
Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 10
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions.
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below)
Abstain

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

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #218Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Accept
Sharron Rush Accept Thank you
Howard Kramer Accept
Estella Oncins Accept
Kevin White Accept
Laura Keen Accept
Mark Palmer Accept
Jason McKee Accept
Jennifer Chadwick Accept
Sylvie Duchateau Accept
Shawn Lawton Henry

20. Acceptance of Issue #219

GitHub comment:
Add a subheading such as “Not WCAG Requirement”

COGA responded:
The language in the introduction is the result of a great deal of consensus building. We did not change this further.
Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 3
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. 4
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below)
Abstain 3

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

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #219Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. I think it would be important to consider including a heading in future for clarity and ease of understanding.
Sharron Rush Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. The language is hard to understand, I was quite confused by the qualifications etc
Howard Kramer Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions.
Estella Oncins Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions.
Kevin White Abstain
Laura Keen Accept
Mark Palmer Accept
Jason McKee Abstain
Jennifer Chadwick Accept
Sylvie Duchateau Abstain
Shawn Lawton Henry

21. Acceptance of Issue #220

GitHub comment:
I had difficulty understanding objectives 1 and 3

COGA responded:
After discussion, we addressed this by adding introduction text to clarify each objective rather than changing the objective names.
Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 5
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. 1
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below)
Abstain 4

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

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #220Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Abstain I cannot find the added text.
Sharron Rush Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. I remain confused. The additional language is not clear.
Howard Kramer Accept
Estella Oncins Accept
Kevin White Abstain I am not sure where the new content was added. There isn't really a section, other than the summary, which introduces the Objectives. There are the user stories and the design patterns but not anything on the objectives. The Summary might be suitable and succinct enough but this would again suggest changing that to be 'Objectives' rather than summary.
Laura Keen Accept
Mark Palmer Accept
Jason McKee Abstain
Jennifer Chadwick Accept
Sylvie Duchateau Abstain
Shawn Lawton Henry

22. Acceptance of Issue #222

GitHub comment:
Please change some persona names so diverse ethnicities are included.

COGA responded:
Done. The changes were run by the internationalization group.
Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 9
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions.
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below)
Abstain 1

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

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #222Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Accept
Sharron Rush Accept Thanks
Howard Kramer Accept
Estella Oncins Accept
Kevin White Accept
Laura Keen Accept
Mark Palmer Accept
Jason McKee Accept
Jennifer Chadwick Accept
Sylvie Duchateau Abstain
Shawn Lawton Henry

23. Acceptance of Issue #223

GitHub comment:
Suggest a thorough QA review and copy edit

COGA responded:
We conducted a plain language audit and several editorial reviews of the entire document.
Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 4
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. 3
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) 1
Abstain 3

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #223Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below) I've mentioned above a few areas for improvement.
Sharron Rush Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. I understand the eagerness to publish and will accept but the narrative remains verbose and unclear. For a guide to clear language it is not a good exemplar of what it is advocating.
Howard Kramer Accept
Estella Oncins Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. While text is much clear the length and structure of the document can be confusing for some people.
Kevin White Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. On the read through I did there were still a few issues... sorry, I didn't track them and I am not the best person to QA copy because mine is usually rubbish!!
Laura Keen Accept
Mark Palmer Accept
Jason McKee Abstain
Jennifer Chadwick Accept It's very evident. I would love this type of review for other working group resources. :) (EOWG is already a standard for this!).
Sylvie Duchateau Abstain
Shawn Lawton Henry Abstain Examples of inconsistencies in capitalization and spacing (one word vs. two words) in 19 March 2021 version:
* webpage, web page, Web page (within sentence)
* website, Web site (within sentence)
* web application, Web application (within sentence)
* web content, Web content (within sentence)
* "Cognitive Disabilities, Learning Disabilities (LD), Neurodiversity, Intellectual Disabilities, and Specific Learning Disabilities. " in the Abstract and lower case elsewhere
* Objectives, objectives
* Patterns, patterns
…

WAI Style Guide says: website (one word), web page (two words), and web lowercase.

24. Acceptance of Issue #235

[update clarification: this was submitted later as an individual comment, not from EOWG]

GitHub comment:
Suggest a thorough copyedit and consistency edit

COGA responded:
We made changes so lists are consistent.
Please indicate your acceptance of how the issue has been addressed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Accept 5
Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. 3
Do not accept for current publication until the issue is more adequately addressed (comments below)
Abstain 2

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

Details

Responder Acceptance of Issue #235Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions.
Sharron Rush Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. Same comment as previous
Howard Kramer Accept
Estella Oncins Accept for current publication but leave issue open for future versions. Same as previous comment
Kevin White Abstain
Laura Keen Accept
Mark Palmer Accept
Jason McKee Abstain
Jennifer Chadwick Accept
Sylvie Duchateau Accept
Shawn Lawton Henry

25. Other comments?

Any other comments that didn't fit in above?

Details

Responder Comments
Vicki Menezes Miller
Sharron Rush Since we are down to splitting hairs, I want to once again express my appreciation at the research and hundreds of hours of hard work that has gone into this document. There is so much valuable information and guidance for issues that too many people know nothing about. It is critically important and I am deeply grateful for all you have done - thanks again!
Howard Kramer
Estella Oncins Overall ethical procedures when dealing with these groups which are considered vulnerable are not properly addressed. In some countries informed consents when dealing with vulnerable groups are not important but mandatory and Ethical Committees have to give approval. These ethical principles seems to be missing in the overall document.
Kevin White
Laura Keen I've been a front end developer for 20+ years. My first exposure to web accessibility was back in 2001 working for Bob Regan at Macromedia. He enlightened me to the challenges of developing sites that are accessible to people with cognitive disabilities even then. So my perspective while reviewing this document is that the information here is extremely valuable and long overdue. I read this document as a resource that designers and developers will use by section. Having said that I find that Appendix A is a valuable aid in navigating the document. I only wish it were higher up in the main body so that it won't get missed by designers, developers, and project managers.
Mark Palmer Responses from the perspective of someone more involved in technical evaluation than user research.
Jason McKee
Jennifer Chadwick
Sylvie Duchateau
Shawn Lawton Henry

More details on responses

  • Vicki Menezes Miller: last responded on 18, March 2021 at 23:33 (UTC)
  • Sharron Rush: last responded on 19, March 2021 at 03:14 (UTC)
  • Howard Kramer: last responded on 19, March 2021 at 03:33 (UTC)
  • Estella Oncins: last responded on 19, March 2021 at 06:39 (UTC)
  • Kevin White: last responded on 19, March 2021 at 11:17 (UTC)
  • Laura Keen: last responded on 19, March 2021 at 13:53 (UTC)
  • Mark Palmer: last responded on 19, March 2021 at 13:56 (UTC)
  • Jason McKee: last responded on 19, March 2021 at 14:00 (UTC)
  • Jennifer Chadwick: last responded on 19, March 2021 at 16:55 (UTC)
  • Sylvie Duchateau: last responded on 22, March 2021 at 15:14 (UTC)
  • Shawn Lawton Henry: last responded on 23, March 2021 at 13:33 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

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