W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire EOWG Weekly Survey 14 January 2015

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

This questionnaire was open from 2015-01-13 to 2015-01-16.

9 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Adding accessible solutions to cover pages.
Relationship to WCAG2.0 and Techniques
Tutorial permalinks

1. Adding accessible solutions to cover pages.

Josh O’Connor wonders if the image tutorial cover page title could read “Image Concepts and Accessible solutions”:

I wonder if the title of the tutorial should be 'Image Concepts and Accessible solutions' or similar? This is largely because each of the image use cases on the image home page outlines a use case and an approach to dealing with it in a way that is accessible. So the title 'Image Concepts' seems to fall short of the full purpose of the page.
Unless we think that having the a11y solution within the tutorial is already implicit (it could be said)..

Question: Do we think that “accessibility solutions” should be added to the title?

Details

Responder	Adding accessible solutions to cover pages.
Sylvie Duchateau	No opinion on this, the actual title does not bother me, if it is changed, I am also ok with this.
Sharron Rush	No, we have used the term "Concepts" with each of the tutorial titles. If it is agreed that more detail is needed in the title, I suggest "Accessible Images Concepts"
Vivienne Conway	Yes, I really like this addition to the title.
Wayne Dick
Brent Bakken	I agree with "Accessible Image Concepts" as stated by other members.
Shawn Lawton Henry	I do not think the title/h1 should be "Image Concepts and Accessible solutions"; however, maybe it should be changed – and also the breadcrumbs. The issue is that the h1s don't have "accessible" in there at all. Also, the "Concepts" pages are the first page of each tutorial – making the breadcrumbs a bit off. (On the Concepts page, there is a unlinked "Images", and on the subpages, the link "Images" goes to the "Images Concepts" page.) For me, having "Web Accessibility Tutorials" clearly at the top left of all pages provides enough context, and I don't need it in the h1 (it's also in the page title)… however, I'm not a typical user in this case since I know what they are. I'm also OK with the breadcrumbs – though it's odd, I don't think it negatively impacts accessibility or usability. Also, I thought we actually didn't want to highlight "accessible" too much anyway – in that this is just best practice? So I mildly vote for leaving it as is. I wouldn't object to "Accessible Images Concepts"
Kevin White	I was never 100% sure of '... Concepts'. I am not convinced 'Accessible solutions' helps clarify the purpose. In some respects the context of 'Accessibility Tutorials' > 'Images' is enough.
Lydia Harkey	Suggest add 'Accessible' be added as the first word. For example, 'Accessible Image Concepts'. This prepares the reader the contents will focus on accessible solutions.
Shadi Abou-Zahra

2. Relationship to WCAG2.0 and Techniques

Reviewers noted that the relationship to other WCAG2.0 documents is not 100% clear. I have added a sentence to the main tutorial cover page and to the “Related WCAG2.0 resources” box on the bottom of most pages.

The text in the related document section reads: (Note that the parts enclosed by an if statement below are only shown if there are success criteria/techniques associated to the tutorial.)

These tutorials show examples of best practice implementations that meet WCAG2.0 in certain situations. For normative information, see the WCAG2.0 specification[ if success_criteria ], especially the following success criteria [ end if ]. [ if techniques ] Additional guidance can also be found in the (non-normative) techniques below.[ end if ]

Questions: Any wording suggestions, especially on the cover page? Does this set the context for the tutorials correctly or do we want to say more (or less)?

Details

Responder	Relationship to WCAG2.0 and Techniques
Sylvie Duchateau
Sharron Rush	Yes, this correctly sets the context, no changes needed from my POV.
Vivienne Conway	I think this explains the relationship to WCAG 2.0 nicely.
Wayne Dick
Brent Bakken
Shawn Lawton Henry	* Change "WCAG2.0 specification" to "WCAG 2.0 standard" * The paragraph on the cover page needs more context – like you have in the other place. How about this: "These tutorials provide guidance on best practices that meet WCAG 2.0 in certain situations. For additional guidance in (non-normative) techniques, see How to Meet WCAG 2.0. For the normative guidelines, see the WCAG 2.0 standard." * I do not think it goes in the "Related WCAG2.0 resources" box. If we think it's needed on most pages, perhaps put it in a section at the bottom of each page? Maybe after the Welcome your ideas box?
Kevin White	Other than my perpetual confusion over 'normative' and 'non-normative', looks fine.
Lydia Harkey	No change on the cover page. For 'In context in the related section on a tutorial page' I went back and forth on the word 'especially' and 'including' for the texts "especially the following success criteria". As a suggestion I think the word 'especially' could be replaced to 'including' as it seems to convey the message in a friendlier tone.
Shadi Abou-Zahra	I think it may be worth considering saying a little bit more on the cover page, for example that the tutorials do not cover all situations, technologies, success criteria, and conformance requirements. Also that they highlight some approaches but that there are often other approaches that can be equally conformant to WCAG. Maybe a specific section "Relationship to WCAG 2.0" may be useful. On the individual pages, I think you can then just link to that section on the main cover page, to avoid repetition. Maybe just a sentence explaining that what is on the cover page is a general blurb, and what is below is specific to that particular page.

3. Tutorial permalinks

Throughout the tutorials, permalinks are used to give people a convenient way to get links to specific sections on individual pages. Those permalinks are shown using a pilcrow icon (¶) and a title of “Permalink”.

We have had comments that those permalinks are distracting (especially to screen reader users) and they are unnecessary because we have the “on this page” in-page navigation that provides links to specific sections.

Questions: Do we want to keep the permalinks? If so, do we want to change the icon (for example to the anchor used in the Evaluation Tools List)?

Details

Responder	Tutorial permalinks
Sylvie Duchateau
Sharron Rush	I was not a big fan of the permalinks because of the in-page links list but I recall we spoke about it at length and determined to use it for reasons that escape me know but were compelling at the time. I really feel neutral about it at this point and leave to the discretion of the awesome editor.
Vivienne Conway	I actually prefer the appearance of the anchor and it seems more intuitive than the pilcrow icon. However with NVDA, the Evaluation Tools page reads the heading, then "permalink link". With NVDA this page just read the heading and then 'link'. For some reason it won't even read 'permalink'.
Wayne Dick	The permalinks are redundant. I don't know about screen readers, but they bother me. If you really want them just slap an aria-hidden around them. The won't bother screen readers and everyone else can see them.
Brent Bakken	If it is redundant, and the screen reader can easily access the "on this page" navigation area, then I think it best to remove them. If they are left on the page, the most common symbol used for a permalink is a hash sign (#). But if it is important to be consistent, and the anchor is used elsewhere, then I would say to continue to use the anchor symbol to denote a permalink.
Shawn Lawton Henry	I think users will be wondering what the icons are, and some will waste effort trying to figure them out. I think they will be used only seldom. For me, they add visual clutter -- they attract my attention and distract me from reading. I still think we should not have them. However, I will not object to leaving them there if others feel strongly. I do still object to the pilcrow icon. <https://github.com/w3c/wai-eval-tools/issues/40> I'm fine with the anchor.
Kevin White	In some respects 'permalink' is a misnomer, or at least being used slightly outside it's more common usage as a permanent link to content that is likely to be subject to link rot. If anything this is a 'Quick link' to that section. Perhaps that is a suitable title or 'Link to this section'. I don't know that 'on this page' meets the usage, as if one was seeking to link to that section, then without the quick link it would involve irritating scrolling. I have seen an anchor (⚓︎) which is slightly incorrect, perhaps the chain link icon (
Lydia Harkey	I vote to keep the permalinks. The software trainer in me had to look up the definition of Permalink and anchor to make sure what I learned/teach about the terms 'Permalink' and 'Anchor' and icons used did not change. Based on the second paragraph above I am reading that the navigation provides links to specific sections. If the link is to navigate to a specific section on the same page this would be 'Anchor' and the anchor icon is currently being used on the Evaluation Tools list webpage. If the link is to provide the user a quick return to a specific URL address/page then the Permalink is best. I did not find a standard icon for permalink on the web or industry standards. Although, I did find that the most commonly used icon for permalink is a link that looks similar to a chain link. Therefore, depending on where the link is going I recommend using the anchor icon if link is on the same page. For the permalink the chain link icon may be best to indicate it will save a specific URL/location of webpage.
Shadi Abou-Zahra	I don't mind changing the icon or styling to make it more subtle. However, I do think that the functionality of permalinks is very useful for our resources, that we want to be reference material. Yes, one can scroll all the way back to the top and search for an appropriate link, but if we want to make it easier for people to share the materials that we provide then permalinks are very useful ("until user agents provide [...]" ;)