w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire EOWG Weekly Survey - 25 March 2022
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: shawn@w3.org
This questionnaire was open from 2022-03-24 to 2022-04-04.
13 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Review of Teleconference Minutes
- Review of the EOWG Work for this week
- Restructure modules for Content Authoring curriculum
- Current work on Evaluation Tools List
- Checks added to Accessibility Checks filter
- Help needed defining terms
- Additional guidance for Tools List users
- Support for beginners
- Level of expertise needed for specific tools
- Should the tools identify and/or filter by tasks/roles?
- Other Information to share
1. Review of Teleconference Minutes
summary | by responder | by choice
Please read or skim this week's teleconference meeting minutes. Indicate your approval or concerns with the minutes (and/or resolution(s)) passed. Find the summary and a link to the full minutes on the 2022 Minutes wiki page.
If you missed the teleconference, please indicate on the wiki page that you read the minutes — after [done], add your name and date.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I was in the teleconference - did not review minutes and/or accept them as submitted | 8 |
| I was in the meeting and suggest a change to the minutes in the comments below. | |
| I missed the meeting, have reviewed the minutes, and understand tasks and next steps for EOWG participants. | 5 |
| I missed the meeting and have questions about the minutes, explained 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 | Review of Teleconference Minutes | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Carlos Duarte |
|
|
| Shadi Abou-Zahra |
|
|
| Laura Keen |
|
|
| Sharron Rush |
|
|
| Brent Bakken |
|
|
| Kris Anne Kinney |
|
|
| Howard Kramer |
|
|
| Sylvie Duchateau |
|
|
| Shawn Lawton Henry | I missed the meeting, have reviewed the minutes. | |
| Kevin White |
|
|
| Brian Elton |
|
|
| Mark Palmer |
|
|
| Vicki Menezes Miller |
|
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| I was in the teleconference - did not review minutes and/or accept them as submitted |
|
| I was in the meeting and suggest a change to the minutes in the comments below. | |
| I missed the meeting, have reviewed the minutes, and understand tasks and next steps for EOWG participants. |
|
| I missed the meeting and have questions about the minutes, explained below. | |
| I have not read the minutes yet, and have put the date for my review into the comments box. |
2. Review of the EOWG Work for this week
summary | by responder | by choice
Please indicate below that you have seen and understand the assigned Work for This Week.Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I have reviewed and understand the assigned work for EOWG this week . | 12 |
| I reviewed work for this week and have questions below. | |
| I don't have time this week for the assigned work and will catch up by the date entered below. |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | Review of the EOWG Work for this week | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Carlos Duarte |
|
|
| Shadi Abou-Zahra |
|
|
| Laura Keen |
|
|
| Sharron Rush |
|
|
| Brent Bakken |
|
|
| Kris Anne Kinney |
|
|
| Howard Kramer |
|
|
| Sylvie Duchateau |
|
|
| Shawn Lawton Henry | ||
| Kevin White |
|
|
| Brian Elton |
|
|
| Mark Palmer |
|
|
| Vicki Menezes Miller |
|
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| I have reviewed and understand the assigned work for EOWG this week . |
|
| I reviewed work for this week and have questions below. | |
| I don't have time this week for the assigned work and will catch up by the date entered below. |
3. Restructure modules for Content Authoring curriculum
summary | by responder | by choice
Please review the discussion in the meeting of 25 March about changes to the structure of the Content Author curriculum modules. In consideration of the complexity of explaining requirements for accessible data visualizations, the Task Force has recommended to restructure the module Topics. Previously organized as Text Alternatives and Data Visualization, the proposal is to restructure as Images and Data Tables. After reading the discussion, please thing about:
- Does this make more sense?
- Other than cross referencing what other ideas do you have about addressing data visualization?
- How else we can help instructors to teach this complex topic?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes it makes more sense, I agree with this direction and have nothing to add | 10 |
| I agree with this direction and have comments below about how to help instructors with data visualization | |
| I am not sure and would like more time to think about it | |
| I don't agree with this direction and have put reasons below | |
| I have no opinion and will leave these decisions to the group. | 2 |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | Restructure modules for Content Authoring curriculum | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Carlos Duarte |
|
|
| Shadi Abou-Zahra |
|
|
| Laura Keen |
|
|
| Sharron Rush |
|
|
| Brent Bakken |
|
|
| Kris Anne Kinney |
|
|
| Howard Kramer |
|
I think this is much better and how these topics are presented in other WAI resources. |
| Sylvie Duchateau |
|
|
| Shawn Lawton Henry | ||
| Kevin White |
|
|
| Brian Elton |
|
|
| Mark Palmer |
|
|
| Vicki Menezes Miller |
|
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| Yes it makes more sense, I agree with this direction and have nothing to add |
|
| I agree with this direction and have comments below about how to help instructors with data visualization | |
| I am not sure and would like more time to think about it | |
| I don't agree with this direction and have put reasons below | |
| I have no opinion and will leave these decisions to the group. |
|
4. Current work on Evaluation Tools List
summary | by responder | by choice
Please review the current prototype of the Accessibility Evaluation Tools List and review the discussion in the meeting of 25 March about recent work. The next series of question have to do with this work and the subsequent discussion. Please note that the following are known issues and do not need to be called out:
- filter assistant: navigation is not clear
- filter assistant: numbers (amount of tools available) aren’t showing
- assistant: checks page doesn’t contain all checks
- accessibility of page: tooltips, headings etc. A complete check is on our to-do list.
- chosen filters and clear filters button are overlooked
- order of filters inside category
- info tooltips missing
With that in mind, do you have any general feedback or suggestions on the design or content?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results |
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | Current work on Evaluation Tools List | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Carlos Duarte | Consider grouping results into pages with lesser results instead of having a single page with 156 tools (so far). | |
| Shadi Abou-Zahra | ||
| Laura Keen | ||
| Sharron Rush | I am very impressed with work to date - thanks! The way you are gathering feedback is great as well. | |
| Brent Bakken | ||
| Kris Anne Kinney | ||
| Howard Kramer | No, looks good to me. | |
| Sylvie Duchateau | ||
| Shawn Lawton Henry | I think there is a bit of a disconnect on how the Tools List fits within the broad scope of the W3C WAI resources. The Tools List is not intended to educate accessibility beginners. Accessibility beginners should start with the "<a href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-intro/">Introduction to Web Accessibility</a>", and follow the links to more information from there. Specifically for eval tools, the previous user flow was: 1. Read (or skim) "Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools" <https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/tools/selecting/>, then 2. Use the Tools list Are we still designing for that user flow? If so, we need clear signposting for users to start by reading “Selecting…”. (and we need to update that page) Then we can keep the List itself focused on finding tools, and not on educating users about tools. | |
| Kevin White | There are quite a lot of filter options on the left now. I wonder if there was any exploration of having common filters visible and then a 'Show more filter options' type thing that hid other options, similar to the 'see more' option within some of the filter options themselves. This might make it less overwhelming. | |
| Brian Elton | Overall I think it's great! | |
| Mark Palmer | As discussed in the meeting, it would also be beneficial to filter by what the user is trying to do as well as by role as this may be more easily understood. Not all organisations use the same job titles, especially in the public sector (where many of these job roles could be performed by contracted third parties). | |
| Vicki Menezes Miller | Great work! A couple of comments: The list of filters is quite long and could be overwhelming. Suggest keeping a standard minimum of checks per heading, followed by "See more". Would it be useful to have a way to select all within a section and similarly "deselect" all? |
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|
5. Checks added to Accessibility Checks filter
summary | by responder | by choice
We’ve added many checks to the Accessibility checks filter (see prototype). We merged this filter with Media type, that contained content to evaluate (Text, Video / Animations, Images, Audio). Please consider the additions and think about:- Is the Checks filter list complete?
- Is there anything missing or redundant or overlapping?
- Should the media types be added as separate checks?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Looks good to me | 9 |
| I have a suggestion for editor's discretion, entered below or in GitHub | 1 |
| I feel strongly about a suggestion, entered below or in GitHub | |
| I have not had time to review, will pass and accept the decisions of the group on this issue. | 3 |
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | Checks added to Accessibility Checks filter | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Carlos Duarte |
|
|
| Shadi Abou-Zahra |
|
Principally I like the "Accessibility Checks" filters (or tags, depending on how it will be actually implemented). I just don't know how the individual items were determined and how useful they are to the users. Some items match specific WCAG criteria, like "color contrast" and "readability". Others are quite broad, like "page structure" and "forms". Some are unclear, like "maps" and "language". There are also all sorts of overlaps. I feel a little overwhelmed and unsure how I would use these filters/tags in real life. I think this needs some more refinement but not sure how. |
| Laura Keen |
|
|
| Sharron Rush |
|
|
| Brent Bakken |
|
The list looks good to me but I am not a developer or a tester so I wouldn't know all of the checks to look for or what most tools check for. I leave this to the developer/designer/tester types in our group. |
| Kris Anne Kinney |
|
|
| Howard Kramer |
|
|
| Sylvie Duchateau |
|
|
| Shawn Lawton Henry | ||
| Kevin White |
|
Not sure what 'maps' would relate to. |
| Brian Elton |
|
|
| Mark Palmer |
|
|
| Vicki Menezes Miller |
|
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| Looks good to me |
|
| I have a suggestion for editor's discretion, entered below or in GitHub |
|
| I feel strongly about a suggestion, entered below or in GitHub | |
| I have not had time to review, will pass and accept the decisions of the group on this issue. |
|
6. Help needed defining terms
summary | by responder | by choice
Several filter labels are unclear to our users, some because English is not their native language, some because they are not accessibility experts. We’d like to add more information tooltips (i). (We’re aware that the tool tips in the prototype are not yet accessible yet). Who can help us with writing informative content to explain terminology and working with tools for the tool tips?Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I can help | 2 |
| I have a suggestion and will make an introduction to someone who may be able to help | |
| Sorry I can't help with this. | 9 |
(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | Help needed defining terms | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Carlos Duarte |
|
|
| Shadi Abou-Zahra |
|
|
| Laura Keen | ||
| Sharron Rush |
|
|
| Brent Bakken |
|
|
| Kris Anne Kinney |
|
I might be able to help with this - but I'm unclear which tooltips needed to be worked on. So reach out and I may be able to help. |
| Howard Kramer |
|
|
| Sylvie Duchateau |
|
|
| Shawn Lawton Henry | Please consider how much we want to add information tooltips to this page, versus up front pointing people to Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools <https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/tools/selecting/> -- which we're planning to update along with this Tools List update. | |
| Kevin White |
|
|
| Brian Elton |
|
|
| Mark Palmer |
|
|
| Vicki Menezes Miller |
|
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| I can help |
|
| I have a suggestion and will make an introduction to someone who may be able to help | |
| Sorry I can't help with this. |
|
7. Additional guidance for Tools List users
summary | by responder | by choice
We’d like to provide more information about accessibility (guides) for people who are looking for a tool. We could create more links to resources provided by W3C.
For example: when explaining about manual testing in the Filter Assistant, we could add a link to a guide, or do’s and don’ts for manual testing.
Which resources should we link to? And how?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I have some ideas, entered below | 6 |
| I will pass on this question, no ideas at this time. | 7 |
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | Additional guidance for Tools List users | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Carlos Duarte |
|
|
| Shadi Abou-Zahra |
|
I think this is a good idea to explore but I'm also concerned it could: (1) overwhelm users who are just trying to find a tool but instead get all sorts of other information, and (2) scope-creeping and the difficulty of doing this type of annotated search. |
| Laura Keen |
|
|
| Sharron Rush |
|
I have some skepticism about providing links to WAI resources within the search process itself. It may be more useful - and less distracting - to have a single link to "Additional Resources" or "Support for Accessibility Testing" or "Related Information" and put such resources in a single list with a few words of explanation. |
| Brent Bakken |
|
For Accessibility Check filter you could link somewhere to the following: - Forms, link to the forms tutorial: https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/forms/ - Tables, link to the tables tutorial: https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/tables/ - Page Structure, link to the page structure tutorial: https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/page-structure/ - Navigation and Links, link to the menus tutorial: https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/menus/ - Text Alternatives, link to the images tutorial: https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/ - Media Alternatives, link to the Audio and Video Media resource: https://www.w3.org/WAI/media/av/ I am not sure "how" to link to these resources. Maybe as the filter changes the view of the tools that are available, the page also introduces resources that support the implementation of that filter and the resources show on the bottom or the side of the page. Not sure how to call attention to them once the filter is selected. |
| Kris Anne Kinney |
|
The IAAP has a "Book of Knowledge" that they put together for their Web Accessibility Specialist (WAS) certification. That certification has a lot of good information about manual testing and what you need to be sure you manually test. I'll do my best to try and get you the link to the WAS - it may have info about other subjects you can piece out too. |
| Howard Kramer |
|
Couldn't think or find a WAI resource but WebAIM has https://webaim.org/resources/evalquickref/ - Testing Web Content for Accessibility, which includes guidance on manual and automated testing. |
| Sylvie Duchateau |
|
|
| Shawn Lawton Henry | We don't have that detailed of information for most topics. (And, it is out of scope to create much, or to vet resources outside of W3C.) W3C WAI resources specifically on testing are introduced here: https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/ All WAI Resources are here: https://www.w3.org/WAI/resources/ We are planning to update the companion document ("Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools" <https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/tools/selecting/>), yet need to be careful of scope creep. :-) | |
| Kevin White |
|
|
| Brian Elton |
|
|
| Mark Palmer |
|
|
| Vicki Menezes Miller |
|
I would avoid adding too many links which will take the user to another page and eventually get lost. I'd prefer to simply add a section somewhere for Additional resources. |
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| I have some ideas, entered below |
|
| I will pass on this question, no ideas at this time. |
|
8. Support for beginners
summary | by responder | by choice
Accessibility beginners often don't feel like this page is meant for them. There's a lack of immediately recognizable terms and (technical and high level English) content can be overwhelming. Please think about:
- How can we help beginners to feel more welcome?
- A suggestion is to encourage tool vendors to provide clear, concise and easy to understand information on their tool's features. How can we help them do this?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I have some ideas, entered below | 5 |
| I will pass on this question, no ideas at this time. | 8 |
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | Support for beginners | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Carlos Duarte |
|
I guess you already have a good feature for this: the filter assistant |
| Shadi Abou-Zahra |
|
Is the page not welcoming to beginners or individual entries? I think these are different questions. Some tools are not for beginners. We can give the tool vendor guidance but it is really up to them how they describe their own tools. I'm also wondering if absolute beginners should be using tools. The current list tries to redirect beginners to the "Selecting Evaluation Tools" page (with short explanatory video) for background: - https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/tools/selecting/ |
| Laura Keen |
|
|
| Sharron Rush |
|
|
| Brent Bakken |
|
Some ideas: - Be sure that the tools details are entered by the vendor in bulleted lists rather than one long paragraph (like A-Tester). Easier to parse when it is broken into smaller bits of information. - Provide guidance to the vendor to not use technical terms or jargon when entering tool details. - Would it be helpful to add a "Purpose" field. Vendors can put in simple terms the purpose of the tool and that might be easier to read than a "Features" list of what technical things the tool can do. |
| Kris Anne Kinney |
|
But I will keep it in mind and see if I can come up with something. |
| Howard Kramer |
|
This may go against WCAG non-endorsement policy, but maybe offer a couple of free tools they might want to start with, such as WAVE. |
| Sylvie Duchateau |
|
|
| Shawn Lawton Henry | (see previous comments) | |
| Kevin White |
|
|
| Brian Elton |
|
|
| Mark Palmer |
|
See my response to Q4. |
| Vicki Menezes Miller |
|
Replies to the points for consideration: > Making beginners more welcome: I think we need to keep it simple and not over complicate our thoughts. The page is good as is. Maybe if we have a link to additional WAI resources, beginners could be guided to those resources. > I'm not sure that we should be advocating to tool vendors on how to present their tool features. I think it would be quite a challenge to do so. |
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| I have some ideas, entered below |
|
| I will pass on this question, no ideas at this time. |
|
9. Level of expertise needed for specific tools
summary | by responder | by choice
Filters and tool information don't help the user distinguish tools that are easy to use for beginners from those meant for a11y experts.
Is it possible to let tool vendors provide a "target user"/difficulty rating? We are unsure of this and don't want tool vendors to have to provide tons of information, maybe you have an idea on how to help novice users find a tool that best suits their need.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I have some ideas, entered below | 7 |
| I will pass on this question, no ideas at this time. | 6 |
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | Level of expertise needed for specific tools | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Carlos Duarte |
|
Don't think tool vendors should be classifying this. On the other hand you can ask users to do this... but I guess it is out of scope of these developments |
| Shadi Abou-Zahra |
|
I worry we are starting to tell tool vendors how to develop their tools. How do we define "beginner", "medium", and "advanced"? This is potentially a rabbit hole. In the current list, there are the tool types "provides step-by-step guidance ..." and "displays information within web pages ...". These types of tools are typically more educational and more suitable for people new to accessibility (or teaching accessibility). I think the tasks approach below would be better to address this issue than to try and define expertise levels. |
| Laura Keen |
|
|
| Sharron Rush |
|
I am not sure vendors will be the most reliable source for this. If we wanted to enable community feedback that would be the way to get this info. However, I think we were pretty clear on NOT wanting to monitor that kind of feedback. |
| Brent Bakken |
|
This is pretty subjective. A developer may say a tool is easy to use because of their experience and knowledge, whereas a tester or accessibility specialist might list the same tool as medium or difficult to use because they have less developer knowledge. I agree this would/could be helpful, but how do we make sure what is added by the vendor is useful to all. |
| Kris Anne Kinney |
|
Maybe some type of "skill set". I can imagine that command-line tools may not be great for beginners, but something with an intuitive UI may be better. Maybe a User/Power User type of scenario? |
| Howard Kramer |
|
This would be a nice feature but not sure how to implement without having it provided by vendors/tool authors. Unless this could be crowd-sourced by users. |
| Sylvie Duchateau |
|
|
| Shawn Lawton Henry | ||
| Kevin White |
|
|
| Brian Elton |
|
|
| Mark Palmer |
|
|
| Vicki Menezes Miller |
|
See Q8, second point. Further, I feel it's too subjective a question for the tool vendors. Usually, in such cases, I would simply search for reviews on a particular product and go by that. |
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| I have some ideas, entered below |
|
| I will pass on this question, no ideas at this time. |
|
10. Should the tools identify and/or filter by tasks/roles?
summary | by responder | by choice
At the March 25th meeting we discussed adding a category for roles or tasks (instead of adding job titles like editor or designer).
Should we ask tool vendors to provide a target role/task for their tool? If so, what tasks or roles should we provide as options?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I have some ideas, entered below | 4 |
| I will pass on this question, no ideas at this time. | 9 |
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | Should the tools identify and/or filter by tasks/roles? | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Carlos Duarte |
|
Don't think tool vendors should be providing this. I don't think I understand what is the value added to the current filters. |
| Shadi Abou-Zahra |
|
Following the discussion we had, I think that filter for tasks would be helpful. For example: - I want to check visual design aspects - I want to check interaction design aspects - I want to check coding aspects - I want to check text content aspects - I want to check media content aspect - I want to teach or learn about accessibility |
| Laura Keen |
|
|
| Sharron Rush |
|
Maybe but not sure how we would define things so that everyone understood in the same way. And again, tool vendors understand their tool in ways that some one new to it may not. |
| Brent Bakken |
|
|
| Kris Anne Kinney |
|
I think having a filter target audience could be beneficial. As long as its something that the people entering the tools can pick multiple audiences. |
| Howard Kramer |
|
I'm agnostic on this one. |
| Sylvie Duchateau |
|
|
| Shawn Lawton Henry | ||
| Kevin White |
|
|
| Brian Elton |
|
|
| Mark Palmer |
|
As previously mentioned, I think we add tasks (we already have the roles). I think we define the tasks though rather than the vendors. So vendors choose from a predefined subset of tasks. e.g. Checking the accessibility of a webpage, Checking the compliance level of code I have written. |
| Vicki Menezes Miller |
|
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| I have some ideas, entered below |
|
| I will pass on this question, no ideas at this time. |
|
11. Other Information to share
Feel free to put here things such as:
- What you worked on for EOWG this week.
- What you would like EOWG folks to know.
- Information or questions for EOWG planning — for upcoming teleconferences, future work planning, etc.
(Note that the results of this survey are available publicly, so what you put here can be seen by all. :)
Work for upcoming EOWG teleconferences: If you have upcoming work, please describe what you want to bring to the group in the comment field below. Send any draft material to public-eo-plan@w3.org by Tuesday if possible.
Please plan to join the EO-Planning meeting to prepare for Friday EOWG meeting:
Wednesday- 8am CT / 9am ET / 3pm CET
Teleconference connection info (requires W3C login permission)
Details
| Responder | Other Information to share |
|---|---|
| Carlos Duarte | |
| Shadi Abou-Zahra | |
| Laura Keen | |
| Sharron Rush | This week: Minute cleanup and posting, meeting summary, weekly surveys, EO participant notification, F2F preliminary planning, updated W4TW and the EOWG meetings page |
| Brent Bakken | |
| Kris Anne Kinney | |
| Howard Kramer | I'm using quite a number of WCAG/EOWG in the 3 online courses I'm teaching, attendance over 50 students in total. I will try to get that into the wiki. |
| Sylvie Duchateau | |
| Shawn Lawton Henry | |
| Kevin White | |
| Brian Elton | |
| Mark Palmer | |
| Vicki Menezes Miller |
More details on responses
- Carlos Duarte: last responded on 28, March 2022 at 16:23 (UTC)
- Shadi Abou-Zahra: last responded on 28, March 2022 at 16:41 (UTC)
- Laura Keen: last responded on 28, March 2022 at 17:43 (UTC)
- Sharron Rush: last responded on 29, March 2022 at 17:36 (UTC)
- Brent Bakken: last responded on 29, March 2022 at 21:52 (UTC)
- Kris Anne Kinney: last responded on 30, March 2022 at 13:41 (UTC)
- Howard Kramer: last responded on 30, March 2022 at 20:29 (UTC)
- Sylvie Duchateau: last responded on 31, March 2022 at 14:02 (UTC)
- Shawn Lawton Henry: last responded on 31, March 2022 at 14:59 (UTC)
- Kevin White: last responded on 1, April 2022 at 09:32 (UTC)
- Brian Elton: last responded on 1, April 2022 at 12:45 (UTC)
- Mark Palmer: last responded on 1, April 2022 at 13:28 (UTC)
- Vicki Menezes Miller: last responded on 4, April 2022 at 22:28 (UTC)
Non-responders
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
- Eric Velleman
- Andrew Arch
- Kazuhito Kidachi
- Jedi Lin
- David Sloan
- Mary Jo Mueller
- Reinaldo Ferraz
- Bill Kasdorf
- Cristina Mussinelli
- Kevin White
- Kevin Rydberg
- Ahmath Bamba MBACKE
- Adina Halter
- Denis Boudreau
- Sarah Pulis
- Bill Tyler
- Gregorio Pellegrino
- Ruoxi Ran
- Jennifer Chadwick
- Sean Kelly
- Muhammad Saleem
- Sarah Lewthwaite
- Daniel Montalvo
- Jade Matos Carew
- Sonsoles López Pernas
- Greta Krafsig
- Jason McKee
- Jayne Schurick
- Billie Johnston
- Michele Williams
- Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
- Julianna Rowsell
- Tabitha Mahoney
- Fred Edora
- Rabab Gomaa
- Marcelo Paiva
- Eloisa Guerrero
- Leonard Beasley
- Frankie Wolf
- Supriya Makude
- Aleksandar Cindrikj
- 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