W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire EOWG Weekly Survey - 01 April 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 2016-04-01 to 2016-04-06.

11 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Teleconference beverage preference
  2. Resolutions of 1 April
  3. Resource Development Life Cycle proposal
  4. Section 1 of RDLC - Requirements
  5. Section 2 of RDLC - Conceptual Design
  6. Section 3 of RDLC - Draft
  7. Section 4 of RDLC -
  8. Section 5 of RDLC -
  9. Section 6 of RDLC - Maintenance

1. Teleconference beverage preference

Improvements in mobile delivery standards from W3C has afforded us the opportunity to provide a more personal and enjoyable experience for Working Group participants.

In particular, we are in a position to capitalize on the Coffee-copter to offer an at desk delivery of your beverage of choice using the latest Remote Platform Delivery and Beverage Temperature and Tone Standards.

Please indicate your beverage of choice for delivery during your teleconferences. If you have any special requirements, please add them to the comments field.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Affogato
Americano 1
Café Bombón
Ca phe sua da 1
Eiskaffee 1
Irish coffee 4
Vienna coffee 2

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Teleconference beverage preference
Eric Eggert Eiskaffee I’m all in a summer mood now, so let’s get the vegan Eiskaffee! (I don’t know if ice coffee is a thing outside of Germany, really…)
Sharron Rush Irish coffee
James Green Irish coffee
Sylvie Duchateau None of these, I don't know or don't like these.
Andrew Arch Irish coffee but hold the coffee please :)
Brent Bakken Not a coffee drinker. Orange Juice please. Please deliver this in a Minnesota Vikings logo cup. ;)
Joy Relton Vienna coffee
Susan Hewitt Ca phe sua da I'm not sure what this option is but it sounds exciting. Also, can I please get non-dairy milks in mine? Thanks.
Howard Kramer Americano About time!
Shadi Abou-Zahra Vienna coffee what else?
Shawn Lawton Henry Irish coffee :-) Kevin !

2. Resolutions of 1 April

summary | by responder | by choice

Please read the 1 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! 9
I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed. 2
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 1 AprilComments
Eric Eggert
  • I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed.
Sharron Rush
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
James Green
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed.
Andrew Arch
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Brent Bakken
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Joy Relton
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Susan Hewitt
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Howard Kramer
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
  • Sharron Rush
  • James Green
  • Andrew Arch
  • Brent Bakken
  • Joy Relton
  • Susan Hewitt
  • Howard Kramer
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed.
  • Eric Eggert
  • Sylvie Duchateau
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.

3. Resource Development Life Cycle proposal

summary | by responder | by choice

Please review the stages suggested for managing EOWG resources going forward. Please comment on your general acceptance of this approach.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I accept it as is. 4
I accept it with suggestions in the detailed section questions below. 4
I am neutral. 2
I am not comfortable with it for the following reasons. 1
I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Resource Development Life Cycle proposalComments
Eric Eggert
  • I accept it as is.
  • I accept it with suggestions in the detailed section questions below.
 I think this needs some more explanation for people who weren’t in the F2F. Otherwise it is fine.
Sharron Rush
  • I am neutral.
James Green
  • I accept it as is.
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I am neutral.
Andrew Arch
  • I accept it with suggestions in the detailed section questions below.
Brent Bakken
  • I accept it with suggestions in the detailed section questions below.
 I like the overall cycle. I believe it accounts for all of the stages of a resource from inception through maintenance or retirement. I would like to see more detail outlined in the task bullets to give Resource Managers more support of things to consider or must be accomplished. Each resource will be slightly different and some tasks may not apply, but a general comprehensive task list will help to ensure nothing is left out.

I would also add a "tips" section to each stage of tips to think about and remember during that stage. For example, in the Conceptual Design stage, one tip could be "no details or wordsmithing at this stage."
Joy Relton
  • I accept it as is.
Susan Hewitt
Howard Kramer
  • I accept it as is.
Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • I accept it with suggestions in the detailed section questions below.
 Overall this looks very good and useful!

Suggestion: consider an "inputs" item for each stage. That is, "inputs", "tasks", and "deliverables" (= outputs). May also be useful to pull out "resources" that are currently mentioned inline into a specific item.
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • I am not comfortable with it for the following reasons.
 These three things are not clear:
1. Requirements – defines purpose/objectives/goals, scope, audience, criteria…
2. Resource spec – defines approach, schedule, technology, …
3. Conceptual design – actual rough draft/prototype of it (this needs to be done and approved by the group before too much effort is invested, since major concept changes after coding and content development are costly)

I don't think they necessarily need to be 3 separate "stages" (maybe 1 & 2 are combined), but at least they do need to be 3 clear things.

---

Need to add addressing public comments after the first Publication for Public Review, including EOWG approval to publish updated version.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I accept it as is.
  • Eric Eggert
  • James Green
  • Joy Relton
  • Howard Kramer
I accept it with suggestions in the detailed section questions below.
  • Eric Eggert
  • Andrew Arch
  • Brent Bakken
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra
I am neutral.
  • Sharron Rush
  • Sylvie Duchateau
I am not comfortable with it for the following reasons.
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below

4. Section 1 of RDLC - Requirements

summary | by responder | by choice

How do you feel about the Requirements Section of the proposal?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Fine, this section is good 6
OK, but I have suggestions listed below 4
I think this section needs major revision, outlined below 1
I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below 1

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Section 1 of RDLC - RequirementsComments
Eric Eggert
  • Fine, this section is good
Sharron Rush
  • Fine, this section is good
James Green
  • Fine, this section is good
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below
 April 12
Andrew Arch
  • Fine, this section is good
Brent Bakken
  • OK, but I have suggestions listed below
 Define the specifics of what is needed to be included in the deliverable (the Requirements Analysis Document).

Example:
- Recruit Help
- Conduct Requirements Analysis
- Develop Requirements Anaylysis Document
- - Define Purpose
- - Provide Background
- - State Goals and Objectives
- - Define Scope (including what is out of scope)
- - Outline Audience and Personas
- - Define Approach
- - Propose Format(s)
- - Link to Current Version (if applicable)
- - Notes and Open Issues
- Request EOWG Review
Joy Relton
  • Fine, this section is good
Susan Hewitt
  • OK, but I have suggestions listed below
 "Recruit Help" should come after RA. The latter might help you determine whether, and what kind, of help is needed.
Howard Kramer
  • Fine, this section is good
Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • OK, but I have suggestions listed below
 Don't understand "recruit help". Maybe "recruit necessary resources, such as editors, designers, and developers"?
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • OK, but I have suggestions listed below
  • I think this section needs major revision, outlined below
 Could be purpose, objectives/goals
We always need to define the audience – often primary and secondary.
We don't usually need separate personas for each resource.
We often need to define criteria for inclusion (e.g., <https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Eval_Analysis#Criteria_for_checks> and we should have done this for the Tips)

Some of what's under #2 seems like it fits better here -- e.g., schedule, approach...

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
Fine, this section is good
  • Eric Eggert
  • Sharron Rush
  • James Green
  • Andrew Arch
  • Joy Relton
  • Howard Kramer
OK, but I have suggestions listed below
  • Brent Bakken
  • Susan Hewitt
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
I think this section needs major revision, outlined below
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below
  • Sylvie Duchateau

5. Section 2 of RDLC - Conceptual Design

summary | by responder | by choice

How do you feel about the Conceptual Design Section of the proposal?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Fine, this section is good 6
OK, but I have suggestions listed below 3
I think this section needs major revision, outlined below 1
I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below 1

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Section 2 of RDLC - Conceptual DesignComments
Eric Eggert
  • Fine, this section is good
Sharron Rush
  • Fine, this section is good
James Green
  • Fine, this section is good
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below
 April 12
Andrew Arch
  • OK, but I have suggestions listed below
 I'd like some more detail about the deliverable, the Design Document
Brent Bakken
  • OK, but I have suggestions listed below
 Define the specifics of what is needed to be included in the deliverable (the Design Document).

Example:
- Continue to Recruit Help
- Develop Design Document
- - Define MVP(?)
- - Define Approach
- - Propose Format(s) & Technology
- - Propose Project Schedule
- - Link to Current Version (if applicable)
- - Create Conceptual Design (outline/wireframes/mockups
- - Notes and Open Issues
- Request EOWG Review
- Announce project to WAI IG
Joy Relton
  • Fine, this section is good
Susan Hewitt
  • Fine, this section is good
Howard Kramer
  • Fine, this section is good
Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • OK, but I have suggestions listed below
 [medium] Output could also be a prototype (of a document and/or tool), rather than a "design document" (to avoid too much bureaucracy and "paper" generating - could even add any design considerations as amendments directly to the requirements document)
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • I think this section needs major revision, outlined below
 Some relevant comments above.

I'm not comfortable with "Announce project to WAI IG". There are many cons and some pros with announcing resources so early. This needs more consideration before we change our process.

Write out "MVP" and explain.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
Fine, this section is good
  • Eric Eggert
  • Sharron Rush
  • James Green
  • Joy Relton
  • Susan Hewitt
  • Howard Kramer
OK, but I have suggestions listed below
  • Andrew Arch
  • Brent Bakken
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra
I think this section needs major revision, outlined below
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below
  • Sylvie Duchateau

6. Section 3 of RDLC - Draft

summary | by responder | by choice

How do you feel about the Draft Section of the proposal?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Fine, this section is good 5
OK, but I have suggestions listed below 1
I think this section needs major revision, outlined below 4
I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below 1

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Section 3 of RDLC - DraftComments
Eric Eggert
  • Fine, this section is good
Sharron Rush
  • I think this section needs major revision, outlined below
 Because there are specific requirements for how Drafts are referenced at the W3C, I think we must be a bit more detailed than "iterate until ready." Also, where are the users in the "User test" part of the iteration? This is quite vague and not at all clear to me.
James Green
  • Fine, this section is good
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below
 April 12
Andrew Arch
  • I think this section needs major revision, outlined below
 Q. does 'design' = 'draft the content'?
I love the idea of more 'user testing' - how this will be done (incl recruitment) should probably be incorporated into the Design Guide
Also, the W3C process allows for (and encourages) multiple drafts and public review phases - this should be reflected in our RDLC
Brent Bakken
  • OK, but I have suggestions listed below
 Good.

Add - Request EOWG Review

It would also help to work some of the "what to review for" language into this stage and the previous stage. Also would suggest some language here that states the Resource Manager is in charge of the iterations and what is reviewed and reviewed for in each of the times brought to the whole working group. This may/will be different for each resource and the RM should define that each time it is brought.

Also, need to indicate that the RM needs to draft up the survey questions that will go along with the working group discussion and reviews.
Joy Relton
  • Fine, this section is good
Susan Hewitt
  • I think this section needs major revision, outlined below
 Under tasks, define these steps better, e.g. where it says "develop" do we mean develop as in code or producing content in general? What about design? would that be equivalent to outlining if we're talking written content and not visual design? Not all projects will involve design or code development so the tasks should be more clear and noted "as required" or similar.

After the EO review, is there any other review stage to see if those edits were handled properly?
Howard Kramer
  • Fine, this section is good
Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • Fine, this section is good
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • I think this section needs major revision, outlined below
 EOWG reviews throughout development. Sometimes it is an overall review; sometimes there are specific issues for EOWG to consider and comment on. Usually EOWG reviews and comments on a doc (general or specific issues) dozens of times throughout its development. This is important so that the development continues on the path that EOWG wants. I think the iterative review should be very clear.

EOWG review/discussion happens mostly before usability testing, and a little after UT.

W3C Process has a "Last Call" for /TR/ docs. EOWG has been using "Thorough Review". We need some indication of final draft review. Probably we should have a separate "stage" for that – probably called something other than Last Call or Thorough Review. Also note that after this review, any changes need to be documented and approved by the WG.

(fyi, "Thorough review" under <https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Participation_Info#What_do_I_review_for.3F>)


"Final Draft" -> Publication for review
(As a first version, not as a draft)

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
Fine, this section is good
  • Eric Eggert
  • James Green
  • Joy Relton
  • Howard Kramer
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra
OK, but I have suggestions listed below
  • Brent Bakken
I think this section needs major revision, outlined below
  • Sharron Rush
  • Andrew Arch
  • Susan Hewitt
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below
  • Sylvie Duchateau

7. Section 4 of RDLC -

summary | by responder | by choice

How do you feel about the Public review Section of the proposal?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Fine, this section is good 6
OK, but I have suggestions listed below 3
I think this section needs major revision, outlined below 2
I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below 1

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Section 4 of RDLC - Comments
Eric Eggert
  • Fine, this section is good
Sharron Rush
  • Fine, this section is good
James Green
  • Fine, this section is good
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below
 April 12
Andrew Arch
  • I think this section needs major revision, outlined below
 See comment in Q8 re Section 5 & comment in Q6 re Section 3
Brent Bakken
  • OK, but I have suggestions listed below
 Add that the RM needs to draft up the survey questions if a survey will be used for public review. Or if GitHub is used, then prepare the resource for incoming comments from the public.

I like the idea of a "responding to comments process" link. Need to define the process of how comments will be conveyed to the RM if they come in directly to the EO mailbox. Also need to define the acceptable response time to comments.

Question - in our public review, is it a review of an officially published resource or is the resource still in draft form? If it is already published then there is no need to EO approval to publish at the end.
Joy Relton
  • Fine, this section is good
Susan Hewitt
  • Fine, this section is good
Howard Kramer
  • Fine, this section is good
Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • OK, but I have suggestions listed below
 [low] Do we expect the Resource Manager to be responsible for banging the drum to promote more public feedback and input, or is that more for the WAI IG Chairs to worry about as part of community engagement?

[medium] I think an important task is to demonstrate to EOWG that all review comments have been adequately addressed (including ensuring that one change does not undo other/prior changes). This could be as simple as a GitHub log of the issues/changes, but it is important to make this task (and deliverable?) explicit IMO.
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • OK, but I have suggestions listed below
  • I think this section needs major revision, outlined below
 Outreach plan should be developed before publication, as first publication is start of outreach.

Not sure about "Define… Feature Backlog"

I don't think we need to have an "EOWG Approval Resolution to move into Maintenance Stage", which implies a formally documented approval.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
Fine, this section is good
  • Eric Eggert
  • Sharron Rush
  • James Green
  • Joy Relton
  • Susan Hewitt
  • Howard Kramer
OK, but I have suggestions listed below
  • Brent Bakken
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
I think this section needs major revision, outlined below
  • Andrew Arch
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below
  • Sylvie Duchateau

8. Section 5 of RDLC -

summary | by responder | by choice

How do you feel about the Just Published Section of the proposal?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Fine, this section is good 4
OK, but I have suggestions listed below 5
I think this section needs major revision, outlined below 1
I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below 1

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Section 5 of RDLC - Comments
Eric Eggert
  • Fine, this section is good
Sharron Rush
  • OK, but I have suggestions listed below
 Process is good, suggest to change section title to "Newly Published/Revised"
James Green
  • Fine, this section is good
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below
 April 12
Andrew Arch
  • I think this section needs major revision, outlined below
 I recommend that the outreach plan should be being developed during the public review stage so that we're ready to promote on release.
Help for promotion should also be being recruited during the public review stage for the same reason.
Brent Bakken
  • OK, but I have suggestions listed below
 Good Stage. Need just a little definition around what should/would be included in the Feature Backlog documentation and the Review Cycle (if cycles are already pre-defined, then they would just choose an appropriate cycle for the resource to be listed under.
Joy Relton
  • Fine, this section is good
Susan Hewitt
  • OK, but I have suggestions listed below
 Add "Outreach" plan to deliverables.
Howard Kramer
  • Fine, this section is good
Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • OK, but I have suggestions listed below
 [high] It seems very late to me to create the outreach plan *after* the document is published (or it is not very clear in this outline). I think this needs to be an input to initiate this stage in the first place.
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • OK, but I have suggestions listed below
 I don't think we need to have an "EOWG Approval Resolution to move into Maintenance Stage", which implies a formally documented approval.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
Fine, this section is good
  • Eric Eggert
  • James Green
  • Joy Relton
  • Howard Kramer
OK, but I have suggestions listed below
  • Sharron Rush
  • Brent Bakken
  • Susan Hewitt
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
I think this section needs major revision, outlined below
  • Andrew Arch
I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below
  • Sylvie Duchateau

9. Section 6 of RDLC - Maintenance

summary | by responder | by choice

How do you feel about the Maintenance Section of the proposal?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Fine, this section is good 7
OK, but I have suggestions listed below 3
I think this section needs major revision, outlined below
I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below 1

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Section 6 of RDLC - MaintenanceComments
Eric Eggert
  • Fine, this section is good
Sharron Rush
  • Fine, this section is good
James Green
  • Fine, this section is good
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below
 April 12
Andrew Arch
  • Fine, this section is good
Brent Bakken
  • OK, but I have suggestions listed below
 Add the following tasks:
- Respond to Ongoing Public Comment
- Update document/resource dates and links as appropriate
Joy Relton
  • Fine, this section is good
Susan Hewitt
  • OK, but I have suggestions listed below
 Can we specify who's responsible for knowing it's time to review something? Is it up the RMs to keep track of their cycle or will the chairs or one designated team member keep an eye on that?
Howard Kramer
  • Fine, this section is good
Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • Fine, this section is good
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • OK, but I have suggestions listed below
 Classifications will likely be different, but no biggie for now

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
Fine, this section is good
  • Eric Eggert
  • Sharron Rush
  • James Green
  • Andrew Arch
  • Joy Relton
  • Howard Kramer
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra
OK, but I have suggestions listed below
  • Brent Bakken
  • Susan Hewitt
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
I think this section needs major revision, outlined below
I have not been able to get to this, will review by the date below
  • Sylvie Duchateau

More details on responses

  • Eric Eggert: last responded on 4, April 2016 at 14:15 (UTC)
  • Sharron Rush: last responded on 4, April 2016 at 15:09 (UTC)
  • James Green: last responded on 5, April 2016 at 02:48 (UTC)
  • Sylvie Duchateau: last responded on 6, April 2016 at 07:24 (UTC)
  • Andrew Arch: last responded on 6, April 2016 at 12:00 (UTC)
  • Brent Bakken: last responded on 6, April 2016 at 22:27 (UTC)
  • Joy Relton: last responded on 6, April 2016 at 22:36 (UTC)
  • Susan Hewitt: last responded on 7, April 2016 at 00:30 (UTC)
  • Howard Kramer: last responded on 7, April 2016 at 01:18 (UTC)
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra: last responded on 7, April 2016 at 18:22 (UTC)
  • Shawn Lawton Henry: last responded on 13, April 2016 at 20:27 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

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