W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire EOWG Weekly Survey – 18 Apr 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 2016-04-18 to 2016-04-21.

7 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Resolutions of 15 April
  2. Accessibility and Inclusion: Requirements Analysis
  3. Accessibility and Inclusion: Updated Draft

1. Resolutions of 15 April

summary | by responder | by choice

Please read the 15 April EOWG teleconference meeting minutes. Indicate your approval or concerns with the resolution(s) passed at that meeting. The summary and the link to the full minutes is on the 2016 Minutes wiki page.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them! 6
I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed. 1
I have reviewed the minutes but have concerns with the Resolutions, 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 Resolutions of 15 AprilComments
Andrew Arch
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Sharron Rush
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Brent Bakken
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
James Green
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Howard Kramer
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Eric Eggert
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Denis Boudreau
  • I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed.
 My name was not mentioned in "Regrets", though I had mentioned being unavailable in the availability survey. Not sure that whether it even matters, but felt like asking. :)

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
  • Andrew Arch
  • Sharron Rush
  • Brent Bakken
  • James Green
  • Howard Kramer
  • Eric Eggert
I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed.
  • Denis Boudreau
I have reviewed the minutes but have concerns with the Resolutions, 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. Accessibility and Inclusion: Requirements Analysis

summary | by responder | by choice

Please review the Requirements Analysis for "Accessibility and Inclusion" document.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I accept it as is. 5
I accept it with the suggestions detailed below.
I am not comfortable with it for the following reasons. 1
I abstain. 1

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Accessibility and Inclusion: Requirements AnalysisComments
Andrew Arch
  • I accept it as is.
Sharron Rush
  • I accept it as is.
 I am happy to accept the requirements as stated but am still unconvinced of the need and audience of this resource. Given that others do see the need for it, this seems like a good framework.
Brent Bakken
  • I accept it as is.
James Green
  • I am not comfortable with it for the following reasons.
 I don't see our "new direction" in this document - I think it's important that the requirements reflect the goal of creating a different kind of resource without walls of text, high readability, etc. There is a limited set of people (crossing most personas/audiences) that will even want to start reading something that's just text, especially given our current website design.

Simple solution: add a goal under each audience that specifies the actions that will lead to this "new direction"
Complex solution: use personas instead of audiences and in those personas, clarify the type of content those people will respond positively and negatively to.
Howard Kramer
  • I accept it as is.
Eric Eggert
  • I abstain.
 [Likely not getting to it, sorry.]
Denis Boudreau
  • I accept it as is.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I accept it as is.
  • Andrew Arch
  • Sharron Rush
  • Brent Bakken
  • Howard Kramer
  • Denis Boudreau
I accept it with the suggestions detailed below.
I am not comfortable with it for the following reasons.
  • James Green
I abstain.
  • Eric Eggert

3. Accessibility and Inclusion: Updated Draft

summary | by responder | by choice

Keeping in mind the requirements document that you reviewed in the previous question, now please review the updated draft Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusion: Combined Aspects of a Web for All ("Accessibility and Inclusion").

Please add any comments in GitHub as new issues or pull requests. If you are not comfortable with GitHub, please add your comments below.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I like the document as it is.
I like the document; however, I suggest the changes in GiHhub or in the Comments section below - for editors' discretion. 2
I won't like the document unless the comments in GitHub or the Comments section below are addressed. 2
I abstain. 3

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Accessibility and Inclusion: Updated DraftComments
Andrew Arch
  • I like the document; however, I suggest the changes in GiHhub or in the Comments section below - for editors' discretion.
 Scope of inclusion should mention people from diverse cultural backgrounds as well as speaking/reading other languages (and hence possibly low literacy in the sites primary language)

Is it worth mentioning that prototyping in HTML enable a broader range of PWD to be involved in the usability testing?
Sharron Rush
  • I like the document; however, I suggest the changes in GiHhub or in the Comments section below - for editors' discretion.
 *Much* improved, still needs streamlining to avoid the wall of text effect, a few suggestions in GitHub.
Brent Bakken
  • I won't like the document unless the comments in GitHub or the Comments section below are addressed.
 I think that this document has good information in it, but can't we find a way to present this graphically as well. Venn diagram showing differences and overlap. Other images and icons. We have to make these resources more current looking or most people are going to glaze over and ignore.
James Green
  • I won't like the document unless the comments in GitHub or the Comments section below are addressed.
 I can tell this took a lot of work and there is valuable information included, but I am sad to say that it needs a lot of work.

It does use shorter paragraphs with headings (which is good) but still needs visuals. And more importantly, I think it misses the mark we discussed Friday. I could see academics linking to this, but not your average interested party. It needs simple, succinct language to motivate users to stick with it.

Currently, this resource has a Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score of 15.2 (well into college graduate level language) and an average grade level (among 5 different formulas) of 16.5. I ran those tests against a few other WAI pages and never got anything below grade 14. To me, this resource is definitely consistent with what we have, but I don't think it represents where we want to be when it comes to developing new resources going forward....
Howard Kramer
  • I abstain.
Eric Eggert
  • I abstain.
 [Likely not getting to it, sorry.]
Denis Boudreau
  • I abstain.
 I did not have time to provide comments, so abstaining for now. I can't say that I like the document, and will have comments/proposals to contribute in the near future.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I like the document as it is.
I like the document; however, I suggest the changes in GiHhub or in the Comments section below - for editors' discretion.
  • Andrew Arch
  • Sharron Rush
I won't like the document unless the comments in GitHub or the Comments section below are addressed.
  • Brent Bakken
  • James Green
I abstain.
  • Howard Kramer
  • Eric Eggert
  • Denis Boudreau

More details on responses

  • Andrew Arch: last responded on 19, April 2016 at 12:59 (UTC)
  • Sharron Rush: last responded on 19, April 2016 at 14:27 (UTC)
  • Brent Bakken: last responded on 20, April 2016 at 22:44 (UTC)
  • James Green: last responded on 21, April 2016 at 02:38 (UTC)
  • Howard Kramer: last responded on 21, April 2016 at 06:21 (UTC)
  • Eric Eggert: last responded on 21, April 2016 at 13:49 (UTC)
  • Denis Boudreau: last responded on 22, April 2016 at 04:49 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Eric Velleman
  2. Shawn Lawton Henry
  3. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  4. Sylvie Duchateau
  5. Kazuhito Kidachi
  6. Jedi Lin
  7. David Sloan
  8. Mary Jo Mueller
  9. Vicki Menezes Miller
  10. Reinaldo Ferraz
  11. Bill Kasdorf
  12. Cristina Mussinelli
  13. Kevin White
  14. Kevin Rydberg
  15. Ahmath Bamba MBACKE
  16. Adina Halter
  17. Laura Keen
  18. Sarah Pulis
  19. Bill Tyler
  20. Gregorio Pellegrino
  21. Ruoxi Ran
  22. Jennifer Chadwick
  23. Sean Kelly
  24. Muhammad Saleem
  25. Sarah Lewthwaite
  26. Daniel Montalvo
  27. Mark Palmer
  28. Jade Matos Carew
  29. Sonsoles López Pernas
  30. Greta Krafsig
  31. Jason McKee
  32. Jayne Schurick
  33. Billie Johnston
  34. Michele Williams
  35. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  36. Brian Elton
  37. Julianna Rowsell
  38. Tabitha Mahoney
  39. Fred Edora
  40. Rabab Gomaa
  41. Marcelo Paiva
  42. Eloisa Guerrero
  43. Leonard Beasley
  44. Frankie Wolf
  45. Supriya Makude
  46. Aleksandar Cindrikj
  47. 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.