W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Approval of Scripts for Evaluation Videos

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 2019-09-22 to 2019-09-30.

7 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Review level
  2. Comments and approval

1. Review level

summary | by responder | by choice

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I reviewed it thoroughly. 4
I skimmed it. 2
I didn't get to it. (Please do answer the next question, too!) 1

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Review levelComments
Sharron Rush
  • I skimmed it.
Brent Bakken
  • I reviewed it thoroughly.
Vicki Menezes Miller
  • I reviewed it thoroughly.
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I skimmed it.
Eric Eggert
  • I reviewed it thoroughly.
 I reviewed mostly the spoken audio.
Kevin White
  • I reviewed it thoroughly.
Laura Keen
  • I didn't get to it. (Please do answer the next question, too!)

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I reviewed it thoroughly.
  • Brent Bakken
  • Vicki Menezes Miller
  • Eric Eggert
  • Kevin White
I skimmed it.
  • Sharron Rush
  • Sylvie Duchateau
I didn't get to it. (Please do answer the next question, too!)
  • Laura Keen

2. Comments and approval

summary | by responder | by choice

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos as they are 1
I approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos; please consider the comments below for editors' discretion. 3
I approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos only with the changes in the comments below.
I do not approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos, because of the comments below. 2
I abstain (not vote) and accept the decisions of the Working Group 1

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Comments and approvalComments
Sharron Rush
  • I do not approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos, because of the comments below.
 I need more time.I still think the language is too stilted and formal, some sentences are hard to follow and the language needs simplification. (another pass for plain language) But I just don't have time until this weekend, could complete by Monday. I gladly accept the visuals with no objection. For example, here is suggested rewrite of Video 1:
1 Evaluating web accessibility: overview [text on the screen] Evaluating Web Accessibility: Overview
2 Evaluation helps ensure that your websites and applications meet requirements and are accessible for users with a broad range of abilities.
3 Evaluation is best performed throughout the design and development process. This approach finds errors early and avoids costly repairs later in the process.
4 The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative, W-A-I, provides evaluation resources, free to all who need them.
5 For example, "Easy Checks - A First Review of Web Accessibility" explains how you can do some checks yourself. A
6 Even if you are new to web accessibility and not technical, there are several checks that indicate if accessibility was considered in site design and development.
7 W-A-I also provides a list of web accessibility evaluation tools. You can can filter the list to find the right tool for your specific need.
8 Make sure to read the resource "Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools", which provides guidance on what tools can and cannot do.
9 For experienced evaluators, W-A-I provides the "Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology", or "WCAG-EM".
10 The accompanying "WCAG-EM Report Tool" allows you to record the findings as you follow the methodology.
11 To help you better understand how users experience your website and applications, W-A-I provides the resources "Involving Users in Web Projects for Better, Easier Accessibility"
12 (continued sentence) and "Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility".
13 With these resources, you can learn how to check your website for accessibility and prioritize the issues you need to address first.
14 Web accessibility: essential for some, useful for all.
15 Visit w3.org/WAI/evaluation for more information on evaluating web accessibility.
Brent Bakken
  • I approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos; please consider the comments below for editors' discretion.
 [ED - Medium] Video 5 - Seq. 6: I think a verb agreement issue. "development is more efficient, and create innovative solutions that make your products work better for more people, with and without disability;" Should the word "create" be "creates"?
Vicki Menezes Miller
  • I approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos; please consider the comments below for editors' discretion.
Video 4:
Seq.10 (for editor's discretion)
Any way to substitute "One thing" with something else? E.g. "One point"
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos as they are
Eric Eggert
  • I do not approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos, because of the comments below.
 All in all, I cannot approve all five videos (and this is the only option I have here), mostly due to the imho missed objective in video 5 and several issues across the other videos. If I could decide per video, I would say:

* Video 1: I approve this script; please consider the comments below for editors' discretion.
* Video 2: I approve this script only with the changes in the comments below. (Esp. Video 2/Issue 6)
* Video 3: I approve this script only with the changes in the comments below. (Esp. Video 3/Issues 7 & 8)
* Video 4: I approve this script only with the changes in the comments below. (Esp. Video 4/Issue 5)
* Video 5: I do not approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos, because of the comments below. (Needs to check changed objective with EO.)

This is a long list of comments and sharing it as a long list has its issues but it is the only way I see that is available to me.

I use markdown markup to add some sort of structure to the text. Feel free to reach out if you need an HTML variant of it.

## Video 1

### Issue 1

* level: ED-low
* location: 2
* current wording: Evaluation is an essential part of ensuring that your websites and applications meet accessibility requirements.
* suggested revision: Evaluation is essential to make sure that your websites and applications meet accessibility requirements.
* rationale: Shorter words are easier to understand. The opening has a lot of complicated words that makes it hard for watchers to get into.

### Issue 2

* Level: ED-low
* Location: 6
* Current Wording: Even if you are new to web accessibility and not technical, there are several checks you can do to get a rough idea of the accessibility.
* Suggested Revision: Even if you are new to web accessibility and not technical, these checks give you a rough idea of the accessibility of a product.
* Rationale: simpler language, just “the accessibility” sounds uncommon to end the sentence with

### Issue 3

* Level: ED-medium
* Location: 8
* Current Wording: Make sure to read the resource "Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools", which provides guidance on what tools can and cannot do.
* Suggested Revision: "Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools" provides guidance on what tools can and cannot do.
* Rationale: Shortening, does not sound as “commanding”, avoids “the resource” to avoid jargon

### Issue 4

* Level: ED-low
* Location: 10
* Current Wording: The accompanying "WCAG-EM Report Tool" allows you to record the findings as you follow the methodology.
* Suggested Revision: The "WCAG-EM Report Tool" lets you to record the findings as you follow the methodology.
* Rationale: The name hints at “accompanying” which is also a dificult word. “Lets” instead of “allows” to make it a tiny bit more clear that it is not the only thing to do a WCAG-EM evaluation with.


### Issue 5

* Level: ED-low
* Location: 13
* Current Wording: With these resources, you can learn how to check your website for accessibility and prioritize the issues you need to address first.
* Suggested Revision: With all those resources, you can learn how to check your website for accessibility and prioritize the issues you need to address first.
* Rationale: “these” seems to only refer to the last two resources, in reality we refer to all resources. I think we can make that more clear in text.



## Video 2

### Issue 1

* Level: ED-medium
* Location: overall
* Current Wording: Repeats “checks” a lot!
* Suggested Revision: Should not use checks so often.
* Rationale: It’s really distracting to have that repetition. Some repetition is good but we need some variance.

### Issue 2

* Level: ED-low
* Location: 3
* Current Wording: For example, a web page from your own website, from your competitor, or from vendors you might want to work with.
* Suggested Revision: removal
* Rationale: This feels like a very disjointed list that also is not a real sentence. I don't think it warrants 8 seconds of time that was already said in the scene before. Also why should I want to check my competitiors website?

### Issue 3

* Level: ED-low
* Location: 4
* Current Wording: The resource "Easy Checks - A First Review of Web Accessibility" gives you step-by-step guidance on how to check some aspects of accessibility.
* Suggested Revision: "Easy Checks - A First Review of Web Accessibility" gives you step-by-step guidance on how to check some aspects of accessibility.
* Rationale: I don't think “the resource” adds to the content of the video.

### Issue 4

* Level: ED-medium
* Location: 5
* Current Wording: Some checks are as simple as looking at the title of the web pages displayed in the browser window.
* Suggested Revision: N/A
* Rationale: This specific check has certain considerations. Do we really think it is simple?

### Issue 5

* Level: ED-medium
* Location: 6
* Current Wording: You can do most of the checks with any web browser. For some checks it is easier to download an extension for your browser.
* Suggested Revision: While you can do most checks with any web browser, sometimes it is easier to use a browser extension.
* Rationale: Simpler sentence. I wonder how common browser extensions are that we can use them without explanation.

### Issue 6

* Level: !! Important to be addressed
* Location: 7
* Current Wording: You do not need to do all checks. Sometimes doing only a few checks can still give you a general idea of the accessibility.
* Suggested Revision: remove or reword
* Rationale: If I was someone with little knowledge of accessibility I would not know what is going on here. What is the level I should test, how do I know that the accessibility is good? I don’t think it adds anything to the video.

### Issue 7

* Level: ED-low
* Location: 8
* Current Wording: Just remember that even if you carry out all easy checks, it is not an evaluation of all accessibility aspects. More testing is needed for a definitive and comprehensive evaluation.
* Suggested Revision: Even if you do all easy checks, it is not an evaluation of all accessibility aspects. More testing is needed for a definitive and comprehensive evaluation.
* Rationale: Just remember that in juxtaposition with the scene before does not make a lot of sense. Do instead of carry out because of simplicity.

### Issue 8

* Level: ED-medium
* Location: 9
* Current Wording: With Easy Checks, you can get started right away doing some accessibility checks.
* Suggested Revision: With Easy Checks, you can eyeball some accessibility right away.
* Rationale: This sounds like one would have the power to do quick checks immediately but it is significant time to learn easy checks, depending on the background. (Not feeling strong for my variant which I don’t like but did not come up with something much better.)

## Video 3

### Issue 1

* Level: ED-medium
* Location: 2
* Current Wording: Web accessibility evaluation tools are software programs or online services that help you identify accessibility barriers.
* Suggested Revision: (Maybe) Apps, programs, and online services can help to identify accessibility barriers.
* Rationale: This has a super complex lead, reapeating web accessibility evaluation tools from scene 1 immediately. It’s hard to get into the video this way.

### Issue 2

* Level: ED-medium
* Location: 3
* Current Wording: Tools can save you lots of time and effort on evaluation. And tools can help avoid creating new accessibility barriers.
* Suggested Revision: Such evaluation tools can save you lots of time and effort and tcan help avoiding new accessibility barriers.
* Rationale: A bit more succinct, adding evaluation here to be able to remove it from scene 2. The word “tools" is in almost every scene which feels tiring.

### Issue 3

* Level: ED-high
* Location: 4
* Current Wording: However, tools can't do it all. Some accessibility checks just cannot be automated and require input from people.
* Suggested Revision: However, tools can't do it all. Some accessibility tests cannot be automated and require input from manual testers.
* Rationale: Replacing checks with tests for differentiation with Easy Checks. I don’t like “input from people”. I think it should be “input from manual testers” but that sounds jargony.

### Issue 4

* Level: ED-high
* Location: 5
* Current Wording: Some tools provide guidance to help you do the checks that cannot be automated.
* Suggested Revision: Some guide you through the tests that cannot be automated.
* Rationale: Much simpler, checks->tests.

### Issue 5

* Level: ED-ultralow
* Location: 6
* Current Wording: Some tools check one page at a time, while others can scan an entire website.
* Suggested Revision: Some tools check one screen at a time, while others can scan an entire website.
* Rationale: Many project managers/designers/developers do not think in pages anymore.

### Issue 6

* Level: ED-high
* Location: 7
* Current Wording: Tools can be integrated into different work environments. For example, into your web browser, content management system - CMS, code editor, or JavaScript framework.
* Suggested Revision: Tools can be integrated into different work environments. For example, into your web browser, content management system - CMS, code editor, or your deploy process.
* Rationale: This misses continuous integration methods that are available, I am unsure how one would build it into the JavaScrip framework. You can surely add it to the testing suite for your JavaScript framework, but that rings differently to me.

### Issue 7

* Level: !! must be addressed
* Location: 9 & 10
* Current Wording: Be aware that tools can provide inaccurate results.
* Suggested Revision:
* Rationale: I think this scene needs more detail to be really helpful to watchers. Provide examples on whent the result is ambiguous.

### Issue 8

* Level: !! must be addressed
* Location: 10
* Current Wording: Also avoid relying too much on what tools say over addressing the real-life experience of website users.
* Suggested Revision:
* Rationale: If the tools test for WCAG, they should align with the “real-life experience” of website users. Also, I have heard the argument “our users like it better” to push back against accessibility evaluation often. This either needs much more context and examples or should be removed.

### Issue 9

* Level: ED-low
* Location: 11
* Current Wording: The resource "Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools" provides guidance on what tools can and cannot do, and what to look for in tools to meet your needs.
* Suggested Revision: "Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools" provides guidance on what tools can and cannot do, and what to look for in tools to meet your needs.
* Rationale: “The resource” is not needed.



## Video 4

### Issue 1

* Level: ED-high
* Location: 2
* Current Wording: Conformance evaluation determines how well your content meets specific accessibility standards, such as the "W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines", or short "WCAG".
* Suggested Revision: Conformance evaluations determine how products meet industry standards. For the accessibility of web content, conformance is tested against the "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines", or short "WCAG".
* Rationale: It says “such as WCAG”, but WCAG is the only resource in the Conformance Evaluation overview page which this video introduces. The first sentence also talks about content which is the domain of WCAG, so I don’t know how the “such as” fits in.

### Issue 2

* Level: ED-high
* Location: 3 & 4
* Current Wording: Often conformance evaluation is done: as a final check before releasing a product; in order to provide information to potential purchasers of your product; to regularly monitor the accessibility of your website; before procuring a product; and when getting started with implementing accessibility, to get a list of accessibility issues that you need to address.
* Suggested Revision: (Split in multiple scenes)
* They are often the final check before releasing a product.
* Sometimes evaluations are used to demonstrate accessibility to potential buyers of the product.
* They can also be useful for monitoring the quality of your website or app.
* When you buy a product, a comprehensive evaluation can help with your buying decision.
* If you are starting to implement accessibility, an evaluation can help to find the most pressing issues.
* Rationale: I think this is too long of a list to address with one scene. It is hard to follow.

### Issue 3

* Level: ED-high
* Location: 6
* Current Wording: You'll probably also want to use evaluation tools to be more efficient.
* Suggested Revision: Evaluations can be done with the help of automatic tools. [or something]
* Rationale: Here’s a flipped perspective. First it only talks about what conf eval is and what people who do it need. Here it’s suddenly you who is doing the evaluation.

### Issue 4

* Level: ED-low
* Location: 7
* Current Wording: The "W3C Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology", or short "WCAG-EM" helps you structure your evaluation process.
* Suggested Revision: The "W3C Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology", or short "WCAG-EM" provides a structure for the evaluation process.
* Rationale: Isn’t WCAG-EM the structure?

### Issue 5

* Level: ED-high to !!
* Location: 8
* Current Wording: It describes a process to: 1. define the scope of your evaluation; 2. explore your website assets; 3. select a representative sample of web pages from your website; 4. evaluate the selected sample; 5. and report your evaluation findings.
* Suggested Revision: N/A
* Rationale: Those are super complicated concepts if you are not familiar with them. In a conference talk every aspect would warrant at least one slide with explanation and an example.

### Issue 6

* Level: ED-low
* Location: 10
* Current Wording: One point to note here: WCAG-EM recommends involving real users with disability during evaluation, to help ensure you are addressing the real-life experience of website users.
* Suggested Revision: WCAG-EM recommends involving real users with disability during evaluation, to help ensure you are addressing the real-life experience of website users.
* Rationale: The “point to note here” is not needed. You are producing points to note in every scene :-D

## Video 5

### Issue 0

This feels like a missed opportunity, the video basically says “involving users is a good thing, read everythign about it here:” but does not provide actual information on how to do it.

The video is supposed to be introducing “Involving in Evaluation” https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/involving-users/ but never actually really refers back to the document. How to select users for evaluation, how to analyze accessibility issues. The video mostly talks about involving users in projects.

I’m OK with this one video covering both resources, or the bigger picture, but I don’t think that the objective, introducing “Involving in Evaluation”, is met with this video.

### Issue 1

* Level: ED-high to !!
* Location: 3
* Current Wording: Yet projects often approach accessibility just as a checklist to meet accessibility standards. This risks missing the real purpose of accessibility - the user experience.
* Suggested Revision: Yet, many approach it as a checklist to meet the standards. This risks missing the real purpose of accessibility: removing barriers for people with disabilities to participate.
* Rationale: Projects cannot approach anything. People do :-D It feels wrong to say UX is the real purpose of accessibility. As that was already outlined in scene 2, I would remove that sentence or rewrite it along the lines above.

### Issue 2

* Level: ED-high
* Location: 4–7
* Current Wording:
* Suggested Revision:
* Rationale: This is again a long list (49 seconds). It will be almost impossible to have the attention of the watcher for so long. Especially as we seem to be resorting to just text slides for it, visually. It would be good to break it up more distinctly and use more direct language. It would be good if it was shorter.

### Issue 3

* Level: ED-high
* Location: 4
* Current Wording: Involving people with disabilities throughout your design and development process can be a more effective process that yields better results: designers and developers learn how people with disabilities use the web, and understand the assistive technologies and adaptive strategies that they use;
* Suggested Revision:
* Involving people with disabilities during design and development can result in a more effective process that yields better results.
* Designers and developers learn how people with disabilities use the web. They understand assistive technologies and adaptive strategies that they use.
* Rationale: Simpler wording. Consider doing two scenes. Would be good with examples for “assistive technologies” and “adaptive strategies” as those are jargon-y terms.

### Issue 4

* Level: ED-high
* Location: 5
* Current Wording: the project team is more motivated and energized when they understand how their work impacts real people's lives;
* Suggested Revision: It motivates the project team when they understand the ways their work impacts people’s lives on a daily basis.
* Rationale: Is it really more energized? Did you want to say inspired? (which has certain connotations in this context.) Also motivated and energized are synonyms, no need to say both. People are usually real. :-)

### Issue 5

* Level: ED-high
* Location: 6
* Current Wording: development is more efficient, and creates innovative solutions that make your products work better for more people, with and without disability;
* Suggested Revision:
* Rationale: I don’t think that causation exists. Even if a correlation exists, the current wording reads too definitive to me.

### Issue 6

* Level: ED-low
* Location: 7
* Current Wording: your resulting products are more inclusive and reach more audience, have higher customer satisfaction, and demonstrate social responsibility.
* Suggested Revision: When the resulting products are more inclusive, they can reach a larger audience and a higher customer satisfaction. Involving people with disabilities demonstrates social responsibility.
* Rationale: Again, the correlation is very weak. “More audience” does not sound right to me.

### Issue 7

* Level: ED-low
* Location: 8
* Current Wording: The resource "Involving Users in Web Projects for Better, Easier Accessibility" provides guidance starting in project planning and throughout the design and development process.
* Suggested Revision: "Involving Users in Web Projects for Better, Easier Accessibility" provides guidance for project planning and throughout the design and development process.
* Rationale: Remove “The resource”, remove “starting in” – if we want to use it, we need to span the time. So if it ended with “and until launch” that would be OK. So it feels like it starts but does not end, which is not a good feeling.

### Issue 8

* Level: ED-high
* Location: 9
* Current Wording: The companion resource "Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility" provides more specific guidance on evaluation.
* Suggested Revision: "Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility" provides specific guidance when including users in testing.
* Rationale: I don’t know what a “companion resource” is. Do they belong together so you have to read both? Luckily I think we an get rid of it altogether. “more guidance” compared to what?
Kevin White
  • I approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos; please consider the comments below for editors' discretion.
 The rationale for these is that it just sounds a bit better when spoken.

The use of 'The resource' doesn't sound right when spoken aloud. however, Video 5 Seq 8 usage is difficult without something to identify the resource title as the name of a webpage - quotes don't come across when spoken! Not quite right with it, not quite clear without - possibly 'The <name of the resource> resource...'?


Video 1: Seq 5: 'The resource "Easy Checks...' -> '"Easy Checks...".
Video 1: Seq 8: 'Make sure to read the resource ...' -> 'Make sure to read ...'
Video 1: Seq 9: 'provides the "Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology", or short "WCAG-EM"' -> 'provides "Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology", or "WCAG-EM", for short'
Video 1: Seq 11: 'W-A-I provides the resources "Involving' -> 'W-A-I provides "Involving'

Video 2: Seq 4: 'The resource "Easy Checks' -> '"Easy Checks'
Video 2: Seq 7: 'Sometimes doing only a few checks can still' -> 'Sometimes doing only a few can still'
Video 2: Seq 8: 'it is not an evaluation of all accessibility aspects' -> 'it is not a complete evaluation of accessibility'

Video 3: Seq 3: 'And tools can help avoid creating new accessibility barriers' -> 'They can also help you avoid creating new accessibility barriers'
Video 3: Seq 8: 'content management system - CMS, code editor' -> 'content management system, code editor'
Video 3: Seq 11: 'The resource "Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools" provides guidance' -> '"Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools" provides guidance'

Video 4: Seq 2: 'or short "WCAG"' -> 'or "WCAG" for short'
Video 4: Seq 4: 'and when getting' -> 'or when getting'
Video 4: Seq 7: 'or short "WCAG-EM"' -> 'or "WCAG-EM", for short'
Video 4: Seq 8: Numbered list doesn't work when read out
Video 4: Seq 10: 'One point to not here:' -> 'Note that'

Video 5: Seq 3: 'Yet projects' -> 'Projects'
Video 5: Seq 7: 'inclusive and reach more audience' -> 'inclusive, reach a bigger audience'
Video 5: Seq 8: 'The resource "Involving' -> '"Involving'
Video 5: Seq 9: 'The companion resource "Involving' -> '"Involving'
Laura Keen
  • I abstain (not vote) and accept the decisions of the Working Group

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos as they are
  • Sylvie Duchateau
I approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos; please consider the comments below for editors' discretion.
  • Brent Bakken
  • Vicki Menezes Miller
  • Kevin White
I approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos only with the changes in the comments below.
I do not approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos, because of the comments below.
  • Sharron Rush
  • Eric Eggert
I abstain (not vote) and accept the decisions of the Working Group
  • Laura Keen

More details on responses

  • Sharron Rush: last responded on 23, September 2019 at 20:36 (UTC)
  • Brent Bakken: last responded on 23, September 2019 at 22:14 (UTC)
  • Vicki Menezes Miller: last responded on 25, September 2019 at 11:45 (UTC)
  • Sylvie Duchateau: last responded on 26, September 2019 at 14:43 (UTC)
  • Eric Eggert: last responded on 30, September 2019 at 13:32 (UTC)
  • Kevin White: last responded on 30, September 2019 at 19:15 (UTC)
  • Laura Keen: last responded on 30, September 2019 at 20:39 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Eric Velleman
  2. Andrew Arch
  3. Shawn Lawton Henry
  4. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  5. Kazuhito Kidachi
  6. Jedi Lin
  7. David Sloan
  8. Mary Jo Mueller
  9. Reinaldo Ferraz
  10. Bill Kasdorf
  11. Cristina Mussinelli
  12. Kevin White
  13. Kevin Rydberg
  14. Adina Halter
  15. Denis Boudreau
  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.