W3C

Results of Questionnaire EOWG Weekly Survey - 11 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 2015-12-12 to 2015-12-17.

12 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Resolutions of 11 December
  2. Quickref: Comments overview
  3. Planning and Managing Web Accessibility: Plan content
  4. Getting Started Tips: Designing alternative text tip
  5. Getting Started Tips: Alternative text tip new example
  6. What to call the Report Tool?
  7. Add improvement suggestions/findings external to WCAG?
  8. Does the tool need an accessibility statement?
  9. ARIA use in Report Tool

1. Resolutions of 11 December

summary | by responder | by choice

Please read the 11 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! 8
I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed. 4
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 11 DecemberComments
James Green
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Kevin White
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
George Heake
  • I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed.
Eric Eggert
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Shawn Henry
  • 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!
Susan Hewitt
  • I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed.
David Berman
  • I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed.
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed.
Howard Kramer
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Brent Bakken
  • I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Sharron Rush
  • 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!
  • James Green
  • Kevin White
  • Eric Eggert
  • Shawn Henry
  • Anna Belle Leiserson
  • Howard Kramer
  • Brent Bakken
  • Sharron Rush
I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed.
  • George Heake
  • Susan Hewitt
  • David Berman
  • 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.

2. 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 #57: The banner area takes up a considerable amount of vertical area at 1024x768 and 800x600
    Proposal: This was fixed by adjusting the scrolling behavior and also making the top sort bar more responsive.

  2. Issue #58: There are no horizontal scrollbars at lower resolutions
    Proposal: The scrolling behavior (see #57 above) should have helped with this issue of having a very constrained right-hand column at 800x600 – in addition the sidebar can be hidden.

  3. Issue #60: Button and link text of nav elements not meaningful
    Proposal: I have changed the accessible name of the buttons to relate more to what the buttons do, especially the hide button in the sidebar now is “Hide sidebar”.

  4. Issue #64: Include Techniques and Failures in tag filter
    Proposal: The commenter proposes to add 1.3.1 to the headings tag as the techniques have some relationship to headings. I think it is OK to add that tag to 1.3.1.

  5. Issue #96:Quickref feedback
    Proposal: The commenter would like to have the understanding content appear in the page. We have previously decided against that as it would make the document overwhelmingly large and would need additional UI elements. The commenter also proposes custom filters (as a nice to have). Tags are doing that at the moment and the tutorials can cover other aspects of what they are requesting.

  6. Issue #102: associate hide button visually with what it hides
    Proposal: The commenter suggests that the “hide sidebar” button is more connected to the sidebar. I have repositioned the button in a way so it doesn’t look floating around.

  7. Issue #103: Provide filtering by "type of content"
    Proposal: This functionality is already covered by the tags feature in the filters sidebar.

  8. Issue #59: Hide this information button label
    Proposal: Changed button label from „About this Quickref“ (closed about section) and „Hide information“ (open about section) to „Show About & How to Use“ and „Hide About & How to Use“.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I read through the issues above and have no comments. I agree with the proposed resolutions. 9
I read through the issues above and added comments to the individual issues on Github (or in the comment field below). 2
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. 1

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Quickref: Comments overviewComments
James Green
  • I read through the issues above and have no comments. I agree with the proposed resolutions.
Kevin White
  • I read through the issues above and added comments to the individual issues on Github (or in the comment field below).
#64: Commenter may be suggesting taking a general look at tags and techniques. Not necessarily filtering techniques (although I would be all for that ;)), more about whether SC are being filtered out even though there are relevant techniques in the SC.
George Heake
  • I read through the issues above and have no comments. I agree with the proposed resolutions.
Eric Eggert
  • I abstain.
[Editor]
Shawn Henry
  • 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.
Susan Hewitt
  • I read through the issues above and have no comments. I agree with the proposed resolutions.
David Berman
  • I read through the issues above and have no comments. I agree with the proposed resolutions.
Sylvie Duchateau
  • 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 have no comments. I agree with the proposed resolutions.
Brent Bakken
  • I read through the issues above and have no comments. I agree with the proposed resolutions.
Sharron Rush
  • 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.
  • James Green
  • George Heake
  • Shawn Henry
  • Anna Belle Leiserson
  • Susan Hewitt
  • David Berman
  • Sylvie Duchateau
  • Howard Kramer
  • Brent Bakken
I read through the issues above and added comments to the individual issues on Github (or in the comment field below).
  • Kevin White
  • Sharron Rush
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.
  • Eric Eggert

3. Planning and Managing Web Accessibility: Plan content

The content for the Plan section of the planning resource is ready for a first review.

Please review the content for all activities and add any comments in GitHub as new issues or pull requests (use the "Fork & edit on GitHub button" on individual pages). If you are not comfortable with GitHub, please add your comments below.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I reviewed it. 7
I skimmed it. 2
I will review it by the date in the comment section below.
I didn't get to it; I will pass on commenting on it and accept the decisions of the Group. 3

Details

Responder Planning and Managing Web Accessibility: Plan content
James Green I reviewed it. My comments are in https://github.com/w3c/wai-dynamic-planning/issues/32
Kevin White I reviewed it. [Document author]
George Heake I reviewed it. I think it provides a good broad coverage of Planning content
Eric Eggert I skimmed it. I like it so far, really good work.
Shawn Henry I didn't get to it; I will pass on commenting on it and accept the decisions of the Group.
Anna Belle Leiserson I skimmed it.
Susan Hewitt I reviewed it. Comments in GitHub.
David Berman I reviewed it. I actually tried it out as a template for steps for a government client. It seems to cover all the issues that would have typically arisen (while some parts were, understandably, no relevant) and so this was very validating that we have a very good framework here!
Sylvie Duchateau I didn't get to it; I will pass on commenting on it and accept the decisions of the Group.
Howard Kramer I reviewed it. I would bold the title of each bullet item on "Assign responsibilities" page
Brent Bakken I didn't get to it; I will pass on commenting on it and accept the decisions of the Group.
Sharron Rush I reviewed it.

4. Getting Started Tips: Designing alternative text tip

The public comment captured in GitHub Issue #297 has been discussed further. This was discussed in EO Meeting of 11th Dec and the change in focus was broadly accepted.

The current and proposed versions are available at:

Please review the proposed version and indicate if you accept it. Add any comments or suggested changes in the GitHub Issue.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I reviewed and accept the proposed change. 9
I reviewed the proposed change and have added comments (in GitHub or below). 2
I reviewed and do not accept the proposed change. Please indicate your reasons in GitHub or below. 1
I will review the proposal by the date in the comment section below.
I didn't get to this; I will pass on commenting on it and accept the decisions of the Group.

Details

Responder Getting Started Tips: Designing alternative text tipComments
James Green I reviewed and accept the proposed change.
Kevin White I reviewed and accept the proposed change. [Document author]
George Heake I reviewed and accept the proposed change.
Eric Eggert I reviewed and do not accept the proposed change. Please indicate your reasons in GitHub or below. -> Strongly: https://github.com/w3c/wai-quick-start/issues/297#issuecomment-165092518
Shawn Henry I reviewed and accept the proposed change. /me reads Eric(yatil)'s comment in GitHub...
/me adds comments to https://github.com/w3c/wai-quick-start/issues/297

(so I would like to check the first and second options, but they are option/radio buttons instead of checkmarks :-)
Anna Belle Leiserson I reviewed and accept the proposed change.
Susan Hewitt I reviewed the proposed change and have added comments (in GitHub or below). The "example" sentence is clunky and hard to follow.
David Berman I reviewed and accept the proposed change.
Sylvie Duchateau I reviewed and accept the proposed change.
Howard Kramer I reviewed and accept the proposed change.
Brent Bakken I reviewed and accept the proposed change.
Sharron Rush I reviewed the proposed change and have added comments (in GitHub or below). I was all in favor of this change but Eric's comments resonate with me due to his deeper experience and understanding of the needs of designers. Now am on the fence.

5. Getting Started Tips: Alternative text tip new example

summary | by responder | by choice

Changing the focus of the alternative text tip in Designing means the example is less applicable.

There are some options for what example might work in this case. Please consider the suggestions below, and indicate which ones you think would be suitable to use. Note, in keeping with most other tips it is likely that there will be only one example used.

If you have thoughts on an alternative exmaple, please add them into the comment box.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Media player with visible transcript link. 8
Icon with alternative text showing. 4
Simple table with a caption below. 1
Other, please add ideas into comment section. 4
I will review them by the date in the comment section below.
I didn't get to this; I will pass on commenting on it and accept the decisions of the Group.

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Getting Started Tips: Alternative text tip new exampleComments
James Green
  • Other, please add ideas into comment section.
I think we should show one illustration but have it include multiple examples. Maybe a media player with alt text on the key frame image plus links to transcript or audio description.
Kevin White
  • Media player with visible transcript link.
[Document author]
George Heake
  • Icon with alternative text showing.
Eric Eggert
  • Media player with visible transcript link.
  • Icon with alternative text showing.
  • Other, please add ideas into comment section.
RE: Media Player with visible transcript link: A CC button would also be useful.
Shawn Henry
  • Media player with visible transcript link.
  • Other, please add ideas into comment section.
I stick with my original suggestion: "video with underneath it links to: Transcript and Video with audio description." in https://github.com/w3c/wai-quick-start/issues/297
Anna Belle Leiserson
  • Media player with visible transcript link.
Susan Hewitt
  • Icon with alternative text showing.
David Berman
  • Media player with visible transcript link.
  • Simple table with a caption below.
Sylvie Duchateau
  • Media player with visible transcript link.
  • Icon with alternative text showing.
Howard Kramer
  • Media player with visible transcript link.
Another option could be showing a captioned video but the visible transcript might fit better with the wording of this item.
Brent Bakken
  • Media player with visible transcript link.
I like this because it is simple, people will understand quickly and obviously why it is needed, and the example won't have alt text showing in the content which can confuse people as we have seen in the Getting Started Tips: Meaningful Alt tip.

I am open to other ideas that other members suggest.
Sharron Rush
  • Other, please add ideas into comment section.
I like the media player option but Eric's comment about the focus of the Tip must be addressed first

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
Media player with visible transcript link.
  • Kevin White
  • Eric Eggert
  • Shawn Henry
  • Anna Belle Leiserson
  • David Berman
  • Sylvie Duchateau
  • Howard Kramer
  • Brent Bakken
Icon with alternative text showing.
  • George Heake
  • Eric Eggert
  • Susan Hewitt
  • Sylvie Duchateau
Simple table with a caption below.
  • David Berman
Other, please add ideas into comment section.
  • James Green
  • Eric Eggert
  • Shawn Henry
  • Sharron Rush
I will review them by the date in the comment section below.
I didn't get to this; I will pass on commenting on it and accept the decisions of the Group.

6. What to call the Report Tool?

WCAG-EM Report Tool current prototype

The current name of this application has been leading people to think it will do automatic accessibility testing. We've looked for alternative names for this app. Which of these names best fits the app? You can rate from 5 (like best) to 1 (like least) and use the comment to nominate another one entirely if you wish.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
12345No opinion
WCAG-EM Report Tool (current) 1 2 3 2 2 2
WCAG-EM Assistant 2 3 4 3
Step by Step WCAG Website Template 7 2 3
WCAG Evaluation Guide 1 4 1 2 2 2
Website Evaluation Wizard 1 2 4 1 1 3
Website Accessibility Evaluation Template 1 3 3 2 1 2

Averages:

Choices All responders:
Value
WCAG-EM Report Tool (current)3.20
WCAG-EM Assistant 2.67
Step by Step WCAG Website Template 1.22
WCAG Evaluation Guide3.00
Website Evaluation Wizard 2.89
Website Accessibility Evaluation Template2.90

Details

Responder WCAG-EM Report Tool (current)WCAG-EM Assistant Step by Step WCAG Website Template WCAG Evaluation GuideWebsite Evaluation Wizard Website Accessibility Evaluation TemplateComments
James Green 1 1 2 5 2 4
Kevin White 2 4 1 2 3 3 WCAG Evaluation Assistant
Accessibility Report Template
George Heake 5 No opinion No opinion 3 No opinion No opinion
Eric Eggert 3 4 1 2 4 2 I like Assistant, I like not to have WCAG-EM in there but Evaluation, so my five star rating would be something like Website Accessibility Evaluation Assistant. Step by Step WCAG Website Template sounds like a building tool for WCAG compliant websites and I STRONGLY object to that name.
Shawn Henry 2 2 1 2 2 2 How about XYZ App? e.g.:
"WCAG-EM Report App
Website Accessibility Evaluation Report Generator"

/me digs up last week's minutes... http://www.w3.org/2015/12/11-eo-minutes.html#item09
another idea:
"WCAG-EM Report Builder
For Website Accessibility Evaluations"

Please note my previous comments (somewhere in GitHub) about preferring a minor change since some people are already used to the name of the tool, which is currently:
"WCAG-EM Report Tool
Website Accessibility Evaluation Report Generator"
Anna Belle Leiserson 5 No opinion No opinion No opinion 3 No opinion
Susan Hewitt No opinion 4 1 2 5 3
David Berman 3 4 1 1 1 1 I think it has to include "WCAG-EM" in the name.
I like "assistant" because it seems clearer then that this is not the only way to generate a WCAG-EM compliant report.
Sylvie Duchateau No opinion 2 2 4 3 2
Howard Kramer 4 No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion 5
Brent Bakken 3 2 1 4 3 4
Sharron Rush 4 1 1 5 No opinion 3

7. Add improvement suggestions/findings external to WCAG?

The application does not have explicit fields for improvement suggestions per criterion, or for recording findings that do not fit within WCAG success criteria. Should these features be included in the next release, or can they be delayed and deployed along side other planned customization options?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Add fields for improvement suggestions and Other evaluation observations to the 1.1 release
Release 1.1 as scheduled and leave these items open for a later version 8
No opinion, I abstain 3

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

Details

Responder Add improvement suggestions/findings external to WCAG?Rationale
James Green Release 1.1 as scheduled and leave these items open for a later version
Kevin White Release 1.1 as scheduled and leave these items open for a later version These are extremely useful features but not essential so they should not hold anything up.
George Heake Release 1.1 as scheduled and leave these items open for a later version
Eric Eggert Release 1.1 as scheduled and leave these items open for a later version Ship early, ship often.
Shawn Henry Was this a public comment? I'd like to see it.

Does "explicit fields for improvement suggestions per criterion" mean adding another field to every SC in http://w3c.github.io/wcag-em-report-tool/dist/#/evaluation/audit ? My gut feeling is that that might be too much.

I mildly support adding one field at the end for other findings that don't necessarily fit a SC.
Anna Belle Leiserson Release 1.1 as scheduled and leave these items open for a later version
Susan Hewitt No opinion, I abstain
David Berman Release 1.1 as scheduled and leave these items open for a later version
Sylvie Duchateau No opinion, I abstain
Howard Kramer No opinion, I abstain
Brent Bakken Release 1.1 as scheduled and leave these items open for a later version Originally I voted to add them into the current 1.1 release. After consideration of the tool, I am okay with these being scheduled for the next version. I think some discussion around exactly where they would go, what they would be labeled and what direction/definition is given to them is important and would take time.
Sharron Rush Release 1.1 as scheduled and leave these items open for a later version

8. Does the tool need an accessibility statement?

There is currently no accessibility declaration about the report generated in the application. Should there be such a statement?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes, include it on the start page 3
Yes, put it on a page, linked to from the Download Report step 3
No, the accessibility of the report can not be assured as this is partly dependent on user input. 2
No opinion, I abstain 3

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

Details

Responder Does the tool need an accessibility statement?Rationale
James Green No, the accessibility of the report can not be assured as this is partly dependent on user input.
Kevin White Yes, include it on the start page I think it is worth commenting on how accessible this is. It need not be a huge thing, but worth mentioning. Walk the talk and all!
George Heake Yes, include it on the start page
Eric Eggert Yes, put it on a page, linked to from the Download Report step I think it should have an accessibility statement but be carefully worded to target only the review.
Shawn Henry Was this a public comment? I'd like to see it.

I'm not sure. It would be nice to have at least a rough draft of what this text would be.

My gut feeling is that this is not necessary nor worth the added clutter.
Anna Belle Leiserson No opinion, I abstain
Susan Hewitt Yes, put it on a page, linked to from the Download Report step
David Berman Yes, include it on the start page
Sylvie Duchateau No opinion, I abstain
Howard Kramer Yes, put it on a page, linked to from the Download Report step My decision depends on the language chosen for the statement.
Brent Bakken No opinion, I abstain I am unsure. I would need more background on what the statement is. Is it a statement about the accessibility of the tool itself or some other statement?
Sharron Rush No, the accessibility of the report can not be assured as this is partly dependent on user input.

9. ARIA use in Report Tool

The application currently uses ARIA only minimally. Is this something that must be addressed in 1.1, or can it wait?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes, this must be addressed in 1.1
No, release 1.1 as scheduled 6
No strong feelings, I abstain 5

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

Details

Responder ARIA use in Report ToolComments
James Green No strong feelings, I abstain
Kevin White No, release 1.1 as scheduled Unless there is functionality that *really* needs ARIA to allow AT to interperate the functionality properly.
George Heake No, release 1.1 as scheduled
Eric Eggert No, release 1.1 as scheduled I don’t know what that question means. Is it inaccessible for screen reader users or does it hinder the usability for them? Then this needs to be addressed. As I have not heard such complaints, I think this can be released. (I generally think minimal use of ARIA as possible should be one of the Principles of ARIA use: http://www.w3.org/TR/aria-in-html/#notes-on-aria-use-in-html)
Shawn Henry I'm not sure what all this entails. I assume this would delay the updates significantly, and is not worth it.
Anna Belle Leiserson No, release 1.1 as scheduled
Susan Hewitt No, release 1.1 as scheduled
David Berman No strong feelings, I abstain I think we should follow an 80-20 rule in terms of adding more ARIA structures before release. So I think it's a "should" but not a "must".
Sylvie Duchateau No strong feelings, I abstain
Howard Kramer No, release 1.1 as scheduled Overall comment - having problems editing items in GitHub directly. Finding this is limiting the amount of feedback I provide.

And apologies that this is a bit late.
Brent Bakken No strong feelings, I abstain Obviously it would help screen reader users, but to what depth and extent would ARIA be added. What level of effort and time is needed for this to be included. I am not technical so I am abstaining.
Sharron Rush No strong feelings, I abstain

More details on responses

  • James Green: last responded on 15, December 2015 at 00:17 (UTC)
  • Kevin White: last responded on 15, December 2015 at 10:42 (UTC)
  • George Heake: last responded on 15, December 2015 at 14:31 (UTC)
  • Eric Eggert: last responded on 16, December 2015 at 12:43 (UTC)
  • Shawn Henry: last responded on 16, December 2015 at 13:27 (UTC)
  • Anna Belle Leiserson: last responded on 16, December 2015 at 21:59 (UTC)
  • Susan Hewitt: last responded on 16, December 2015 at 22:48 (UTC)
  • David Berman: last responded on 17, December 2015 at 01:14 (UTC)
  • Sylvie Duchateau: last responded on 17, December 2015 at 10:14 (UTC)
  • Howard Kramer: last responded on 17, December 2015 at 13:58 (UTC)
  • Brent Bakken: last responded on 17, December 2015 at 15:04 (UTC)
  • Sharron Rush: last responded on 17, December 2015 at 15:43 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Judy Brewer
  2. Eric Velleman
  3. Andrew Arch
  4. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  5. Kazuhito Kidachi
  6. Dónal Fitzpatrick
  7. David Sloan
  8. Mary Jo Mueller
  9. Vicki Menezes Miller
  10. Reinaldo Ferraz
  11. Vivienne Conway
  12. Bill Kasdorf
  13. Jan McSorley
  14. Cristina Mussinelli
  15. Steve Lee
  16. Kevin Rydberg
  17. Adina Halter
  18. Denis Boudreau
  19. Laura Keen
  20. Sarah Pulis
  21. Kris Anne Kinney
  22. Bill Tyler
  23. Gregorio Pellegrino
  24. Amanda Mace
  25. Ian Smith
  26. Ruoxi Ran
  27. Jennifer Chadwick
  28. Carlos Duarte
  29. Sean Kelly
  30. Muhammad Saleem
  31. Sarah Lewthwaite
  32. Lewis Phillips
  33. Ash Harris
  34. Kim Hodges
  35. Isaac Durazo
  36. Daniel Montalvo
  37. Mark Palmer
  38. Jade Matos Carew
  39. Sonsoles López Pernas
  40. Greta Krafsig
  41. Dónal Rice
  42. Gerhard Nussbaum
  43. Jason McKee
  44. Letícia Seixas Pereira
  45. Karl Groves
  46. Jayne Schurick
  47. Vijaya Gowri Perumal
  48. Eric M. Velleman
  49. Billie Johnston
  50. Emily Lewis
  51. Michele Williams
  52. Mark McCallum
  53. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  54. Michel Hansma
  55. Brian Elton
  56. Briley O'Connor
  57. Vera Lange
  58. Jasper Jeurens
  59. Julianna Rowsell
  60. Tabitha Mahoney

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