W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire EOWG Weekly Survey - 4 December 2015

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 2015-12-04 to 2015-12-09.

11 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Resolutions of 4 December
  2. Planning and Managing Web Accessibility: More information
  3. Quickref: Comments overview
  4. Quickref: Filter introduction
  5. New feature requirements
  6. Resource title

1. Resolutions of 4 December

summary | by responder | by choice

Please read the 4 December 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 2015 Minutes wiki page.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them! 10
I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed.
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 4 DecemberComments
Sharron Rush
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Anna Belle Leiserson
  • 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!
Brent Bakken
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
David Berman
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
James Green
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Andrew Arch
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
George Heake
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Kevin White
  • 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
  • Anna Belle Leiserson
  • Howard Kramer
  • Eric Eggert
  • Brent Bakken
  • David Berman
  • James Green
  • Andrew Arch
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
  • Kevin White
I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed.
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. Planning and Managing Web Accessibility: More information

summary | by responder | by choice

Some planning activities have a single associated resource that covers the activity perfectly, for example Develop business case. In such cases there may be better ways to connect the resource to the activity text so that there is less risk of the resource being perceived as secondary information. However, being inline may increase the chance that the link will be missed, and does deviate from the pattern for other activities.

Two options have been prepared:

Do you have a preference as to how these links should be presented? Note this is only for those activities where there is a clear mapping between the activity and an existing resource.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer inline link 2
Prefer link in 'For more information' section 8
Don't like either option, please suggest alternative approach in comments
I didn't get to it; I will pass on commenting on it and accept the decisions of the Group.

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Planning and Managing Web Accessibility: More informationComments (Please include rationale for your preference selected above)
Sharron Rush
  • Prefer link in 'For more information' section
Anna Belle Leiserson
  • Prefer link in 'For more information' section
 Just a slight preference, not strong. My reason is it's easier to scan.
Howard Kramer
  • Prefer inline link
 My preference is not a strong one - either one works for me. I don't think the link should be provided within the primary text.
Eric Eggert
  • Prefer link in 'For more information' section
 mild preference
Brent Bakken
  • Prefer link in 'For more information' section
 Medium preference on this. I think if we are going through the trouble to list any resource under "For more information," then it is very relevant to the activity being described in the main content of the page and should be looked at. If we pull some of those out on some of the pages and make them inline with the content, people will not look at the "For more information" links with as much emphasis.
David Berman
  • Prefer inline link
James Green
  • Prefer link in 'For more information' section
Andrew Arch
  • Prefer link in 'For more information' section
George Heake
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • Prefer link in 'For more information' section
 As I mentioned in the telecon, I think it would get lost if most of the links are in a separate section, but some are "inline" with the main content.

I do support having a different heading that better conveys a "resource that covers the activity perfectly".
Kevin White
  • Prefer link in 'For more information' section
 [Document author]

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
Prefer inline link
  • Howard Kramer
  • David Berman
Prefer link in 'For more information' section
  • Sharron Rush
  • Anna Belle Leiserson
  • Eric Eggert
  • Brent Bakken
  • James Green
  • Andrew Arch
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
  • Kevin White
Don't like either option, please suggest alternative approach in comments
I didn't get to it; I will pass on commenting on it and accept the decisions of the Group.

3. Quickref: Comments overview

summary | by responder | by choice

How to Meet WCAG 2.0 (Quickref) Prototype

The following list of issues is a subset of some of the feedback received during Public Review. It contains links to Github issues where the solution is either straight-forward (for example bugs) or might be Editor’s discretion.

Please review each issue and see if you want to chime in. If you do want to chime in, please comment on the specific issue or leave a comment below.

  1. Issue #85: Motion animation in the main content area is excessive
    Suggested solution: Remove “smooth scrolling” for the back-to-top link (already implemented), but keep it in the sidebar to give users a sense for where they are in the document. Work on the scrolling animation timing.

  2. Issue #79: "What did the filter remove?" link text is hard to read against the background
    Suggested solution: Change colors to enhance color contrast.

  3. Issue #78: Keyboard focus problems with "Share this view"
    Suggested solution: find a work around for the bug in Chrome.

  4. Issue #73: Focus of what did the filter remove extends below the filtered success criteria section
    Suggested solution: Leave as is, as it is a browser bug.

  5. Issue #70: Understanding Success Criterion Button _ Name change suggestion
    Suggested solution: Add <abbr title="Success Criterion">SC</abbr> to the button to make clear that the button is related to the success criterion.

  6. Issue #69: Principle _ Guideline _ Success Criteria _ Techniques (Hierarchy could be made clear)
    Suggested solution: Add the word “Guideline” to the front of the guideline headings.

  7. Issue 68: Techniques and Failures _ A little suggestion
    Suggested solution: Change the button text from “Show all techniques for 1.1.1” to “Show all techniques and failures” for 1.1.1”.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I read through the issues above and have no comments. I agree with the proposed resolutions. 7
I read through the issues above and added comments to the individual issues on Github (or in the comment field below). 4
I didn’t get to read through them just yet, I will try to get to it soon. (Indicate date in the comment field below.)
I abstain.

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Quickref: Comments overviewComments
Sharron Rush
  • I read through the issues above and have no comments. I agree with the proposed resolutions.
Anna Belle Leiserson
  • I read through the issues above and have no comments. I agree with the proposed resolutions.
Howard Kramer
  • I read through the issues above and added comments to the individual issues on Github (or in the comment field below).
 For issue 85, my browser (Chrome on Win 10) did not produce that result (smooth scrolling)
For issue #79, I think a lighter yellow for the background would address the issue.
Eric Eggert
  • I read through the issues above and have no comments. I agree with the proposed resolutions.
 [Editor]
Brent Bakken
  • I read through the issues above and have no comments. I agree with the proposed resolutions.
 Good solutions for all issues.
David Berman
  • I read through the issues above and added comments to the individual issues on Github (or in the comment field below).
James Green
  • I read through the issues above and have no comments. I agree with the proposed resolutions.
Andrew Arch
  • I read through the issues above and have no comments. I agree with the proposed resolutions.
George Heake
  • I read through the issues above and have no comments. I agree with the proposed resolutions.
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • I read through the issues above and added comments to the individual issues on Github (or in the comment field below).
 https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-quickref/issues/70
Kevin White
  • I read through the issues above and added comments to the individual issues on Github (or in the comment field below).

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I read through the issues above and have no comments. I agree with the proposed resolutions.
  • Sharron Rush
  • Anna Belle Leiserson
  • Eric Eggert
  • Brent Bakken
  • James Green
  • Andrew Arch
  • George Heake
I read through the issues above and added comments to the individual issues on Github (or in the comment field below).
  • Howard Kramer
  • David Berman
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
  • Kevin White
I didn’t get to read through them just yet, I will try to get to it soon. (Indicate date in the comment field below.)
I abstain.

4. Quickref: Filter introduction

summary | by responder | by choice

A commenter in the public review commented on the introduction text in the filters panel. The text currently reads:

  • Changes in this panel are reflected on the right:

The text is visual-centric which is not very useful for most people, it is also not applicable when in responsive mode where there is no “right”.

In the meeting on Dec 4th, using the following sentence was proposed:

  • Changes in this panel will change the listed Success Criteria and Techniques.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I’m OK with the proposed sentence. 8
I have another idea (that I have put into the comments field below). 2
I abstain. 1

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Quickref: Filter introductionComments
Sharron Rush
  • I have another idea (that I have put into the comments field below).
 Changing selected filters will modify the listed Success Criteria and techniques.
Anna Belle Leiserson
  • I have another idea (that I have put into the comments field below).
 This would affect panel wording and wording on the right
(1) Changes in this panel are reflected in the “Filter Status” row
(2) Then change “Showing all success criteria and all techniques.” to “Filter Status: All success criteria; all techniques.” and “Showing success criteria tagged with captions, content, or errors and all techniques.” to “Filter Status: success criteria tagged with captions, content, or errors; all techniques."
Howard Kramer
  • I’m OK with the proposed sentence.
Eric Eggert
  • I abstain.
 [Editor]
Brent Bakken
  • I’m OK with the proposed sentence.
David Berman
  • I’m OK with the proposed sentence.
James Green
  • I’m OK with the proposed sentence.
Andrew Arch
  • I’m OK with the proposed sentence.
 much clearer too :)
George Heake
  • I’m OK with the proposed sentence.
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • I’m OK with the proposed sentence.
Kevin White
  • I’m OK with the proposed sentence.
 One minor point; it doesn't change the techniques. The tags filter only filters in/out SC?

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I’m OK with the proposed sentence.
  • Howard Kramer
  • Brent Bakken
  • David Berman
  • James Green
  • Andrew Arch
  • George Heake
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
  • Kevin White
I have another idea (that I have put into the comments field below).
  • Sharron Rush
  • Anna Belle Leiserson
I abstain.
  • Eric Eggert

5. New feature requirements

summary | by responder | by choice

After review of the changes made and those not made in the current WCAG-EM Report Tool...

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I confirm that no additional features are required for this version publication 7
I would like to add an additional feature (detailed below and/or in GitHub) but will accept the new version in any case. 1
I cannot support the new version unless the following feature is added (detailed below or in GitHub). 1
I have another comment about the prototype (not a new feature) and have provided details below. 1
I didn't get to it; I will pass on commenting on it and accept the decisions of the Group. 2

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder New feature requirementsComments (Please include rationale for your preference selected above)
Sharron Rush
  • I confirm that no additional features are required for this version publication
Anna Belle Leiserson
  • I confirm that no additional features are required for this version publication
Howard Kramer
  • I didn't get to it; I will pass on commenting on it and accept the decisions of the Group.
Eric Eggert
  • I confirm that no additional features are required for this version publication
  • I have another comment about the prototype (not a new feature) and have provided details below.
 I think this bug should be easy to address: https://github.com/w3c/wcag-em-report-tool/issues/273
Brent Bakken
  • I would like to add an additional feature (detailed below and/or in GitHub) but will accept the new version in any case.
Mild to Medium. I still believe that adding functionality described in issue #247 would be a good addition to the tool, but if it cannot be added now for this version release I am supportive of the release.
David Berman
  • I cannot support the new version unless the following feature is added (detailed below or in GitHub).
 I'd like to insist the grammar flaws that I reported in github be fixed before release.
James Green
  • I confirm that no additional features are required for this version publication
Andrew Arch
  • I confirm that no additional features are required for this version publication
George Heake
  • I confirm that no additional features are required for this version publication
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • I didn't get to it; I will pass on commenting on it and accept the decisions of the Group.
Kevin White
  • I confirm that no additional features are required for this version publication

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I confirm that no additional features are required for this version publication
  • Sharron Rush
  • Anna Belle Leiserson
  • Eric Eggert
  • James Green
  • Andrew Arch
  • George Heake
  • Kevin White
I would like to add an additional feature (detailed below and/or in GitHub) but will accept the new version in any case.
  • Brent Bakken
I cannot support the new version unless the following feature is added (detailed below or in GitHub).
  • David Berman
I have another comment about the prototype (not a new feature) and have provided details below.
  • Eric Eggert
I didn't get to it; I will pass on commenting on it and accept the decisions of the Group.
  • Howard Kramer
  • Shawn Lawton Henry

6. Resource title

summary | by responder | by choice

In consideration of the resource name "WCAG-EM Report Tool"...

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
It is the best name - leave it as is. 5
It needs a new name and I have entered a suggestion below 4
It needs a new name and I would like to consider alternatives, but have no suggestion. 2
I have no opinion and will abstain 3

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Resource titleComments (Please include rationale for your preference selected above)
Sharron Rush
  • It is the best name - leave it as is.
Anna Belle Leiserson
  • I have no opinion and will abstain
Howard Kramer
  • I have no opinion and will abstain
Eric Eggert
  • It is the best name - leave it as is.
  • It needs a new name and I have entered a suggestion below
  • It needs a new name and I would like to consider alternatives, but have no suggestion.
  • I have no opinion and will abstain
 I don’t really know and I don’t feel strongly. I like the name, but I can see why we want a new one and wouldn’t be in the war of one. What about “WCAG Evaluation Report Wizard”, “WCAG Evaluation Report Tool”, “WCAG Evaluation Report Support Tool”, “WCAG Evaluation Report Creator”, “Create a WCAG Evaluation Report”.

(Yes, I realize I have selected all four checkboxes, but I really do feel that ambivalent… O_o)
Brent Bakken
  • It is the best name - leave it as is.
 The tool reflects the process outlined in the Evaluation Methodology so I believe the name is appropriate.
David Berman
  • It is the best name - leave it as is.
James Green
  • It needs a new name and I would like to consider alternatives, but have no suggestion.
Andrew Arch
  • It needs a new name and I have entered a suggestion below
 WCAG EM recording tool
WCAG EM assistant
WCAG Evaluation assistant
George Heake
  • It is the best name - leave it as is.
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • It needs a new name and I have entered a suggestion below
 I'm missing the background on this. I think there is a GitHub issue on this that I pointed to previously, but I don't find it now.

I think it's important to note the subtitle in discussions, so together it's:
"
WCAG-EM Report Tool:
Website Accessibility Evaluation Report Generator
"

However, we still are having the problem that people think it's an evaluation tool that does checking for you.

Here are brainstorms for simple changes that might help address the problem without making a significant change for those who are already familiar with the name:
1. WCAG-EM Report Generator:
A Website Accessibility Evaluation Report Tool
2. WCAG-EM Report Generator:
For Website Accessibility Evaluation Reports
3. WCAG-EM Report Generator:
For Website Accessibility Evaluations

I recall that EOWG did think carefully about this. And one big issue is having a "shortname" or acronym. e.g., something like: "Website Accessibility Evaluation Report Generator for WCAG-EM" is most descriptive, but way too long.

If we are going to revisit this, it would be good for all of us to review the previous discussions of the name in minutes & surveys.

(I actually don't feel strongly that it needs a new name, but there wasn't an option for "I think we should consider tweaking the name:" :-)
Kevin White
  • It needs a new name and I have entered a suggestion below
 I think the word 'Tool' is problematic as I think it conveys a sense that this will do some of the work for you.

Something like 'WCAG-EM Report Builder' moves away from that a little I think.

[Medium]

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
It is the best name - leave it as is.
  • Sharron Rush
  • Eric Eggert
  • Brent Bakken
  • David Berman
  • George Heake
It needs a new name and I have entered a suggestion below
  • Eric Eggert
  • Andrew Arch
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
  • Kevin White
It needs a new name and I would like to consider alternatives, but have no suggestion.
  • Eric Eggert
  • James Green
I have no opinion and will abstain
  • Anna Belle Leiserson
  • Howard Kramer
  • Eric Eggert

More details on responses

  • Sharron Rush: last responded on 7, December 2015 at 17:52 (UTC)
  • Anna Belle Leiserson: last responded on 8, December 2015 at 22:35 (UTC)
  • Howard Kramer: last responded on 9, December 2015 at 05:48 (UTC)
  • Eric Eggert: last responded on 9, December 2015 at 11:19 (UTC)
  • Brent Bakken: last responded on 9, December 2015 at 23:08 (UTC)
  • David Berman: last responded on 9, December 2015 at 23:39 (UTC)
  • James Green: last responded on 10, December 2015 at 03:03 (UTC)
  • Andrew Arch: last responded on 10, December 2015 at 10:22 (UTC)
  • George Heake: last responded on 10, December 2015 at 13:07 (UTC)
  • Shawn Lawton Henry: last responded on 10, December 2015 at 15:06 (UTC)
  • Kevin White: last responded on 10, December 2015 at 15:15 (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. 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.