w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire Authoring Tools List: Dragonfly Review
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: stevelee@w3.org
This questionnaire was open from 2021-09-17 to 2021-09-27.
7 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Introduction
- Review level
- Type of Tool
- Cost Model
- License
- Other
- ATAG Requirements
- More Categories
- Other Thoughts
1. Introduction
This is a Dragonfly Review of the Authoring Tools with Accessibility Support list. Please focus your review specifically on the filtering options:
- Are there missing filtering categories and options?
- Are there filtering categories and options that should be removed?
- Are there filtering categories and options that should be renamed?
- Other thoughts on the filtering categories and options?
Details
| Responder | Comments |
|---|---|
| Sylvie Duchateau | I don't think that something is missing. |
| Kris Anne Kinney | |
| Laura Keen | I have nothing to add or remove. |
| Michele Williams | The last two - "Content Editor Features (editing experience)" and "End User Features (output)" - surprised me a bit with their level of detail. Overall having those categories makes sense (as many tools are accessible in one but not the other) but was surprised by the list of options (though I see this is discussed later in the survey). |
| Shawn Lawton Henry | |
| Carlos Duarte | |
| Brent Bakken |
2. Review level
What level of review did you do?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I thoroughly reviewed the filtering categories and options. | 4 |
| I skimmed them. | 3 |
| I need more time and will review by the date provided below. | |
| I didn't get to it and will not in the near future. I abstain from providing comment. |
Details
| Responder | Review level | |
|---|---|---|
| Sylvie Duchateau | I skimmed them. | |
| Kris Anne Kinney | I thoroughly reviewed the filtering categories and options. | |
| Laura Keen | I thoroughly reviewed the filtering categories and options. | |
| Michele Williams | I thoroughly reviewed the filtering categories and options. | |
| Shawn Lawton Henry | I skimmed them. | |
| Carlos Duarte | I skimmed them. | |
| Brent Bakken | I thoroughly reviewed the filtering categories and options. |
3. Type of Tool
summary | by responder | by choice
The category "Type of Tool" will be extensible. That means that vendors can suggest new options not currently in the list. For example, someone could add tools with new type such as "Document Management System (DMS)", "Video Editor", or "Image Editor". These new options will need to be reviewed manually during the process for submitting new list entries.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I agree with having this extensible category called "Type of Tool". | 4 |
| I'm OK with it; please consider my comments in GitHub (or below) for Editors' discretion. | 2 |
| I will approve only after my comments in GitHub (or below) are addressed. | |
| I abstain and accept the decision of the group. | |
| fyi, I added some comments in GitHub to consider for future versions. |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | Type of Tool | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Sylvie Duchateau |
|
|
| Kris Anne Kinney |
|
|
| Laura Keen |
|
|
| Michele Williams |
|
|
| Shawn Lawton Henry | ||
| Carlos Duarte |
|
Consider having a value of "Other" in the list. It will allow including tools that have very specific categories (without having the list of possible values growing uncontrollably) and including tools while the manual review process for the new type of tool is ongoing. Of course, I don't know if this falls within the scope of the list. |
| Brent Bakken |
|
I am okay with the extensible category. However, is there a way to vet the submissions in this category so that we don't end up with 4 or 5 different "names" for the same "type of tool". |
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| I agree with having this extensible category called "Type of Tool". |
|
| I'm OK with it; please consider my comments in GitHub (or below) for Editors' discretion. |
|
| I will approve only after my comments in GitHub (or below) are addressed. | |
| I abstain and accept the decision of the group. | |
| fyi, I added some comments in GitHub to consider for future versions. |
4. Cost Model
summary | by responder | by choice
The category "Cost Model" reflects the wide range of completely free, partially free, and non-free tools. Partially free is a broad spectrum, including pay to unlock/get additional features, free for limited period, and many other types (and combinations) of limitations. Users of the list will need to find this out from the vendor; this category provides higher-level description of the cost model.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I agree with having this category called "Cost Model". | 2 |
| I'm OK with it; please consider my comments in GitHub (or below) for Editors' discretion. | 4 |
| I will approve only after my comments in GitHub (or below) are addressed. | |
| I abstain and accept the decision of the group. | |
| fyi, I added some comments in GitHub to consider for future versions. |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | Cost Model | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Sylvie Duchateau |
|
Is the term model really necessary? What about price? Or cost. |
| Kris Anne Kinney |
|
I'm not familiar with the phrase "freemium" but if that's a thing, ok. I wasn't quite sure what that meant. |
| Laura Keen |
|
|
| Michele Williams |
|
Definitely understand the complexity and wonder how much of this will depend on how things can be entered by the organizations. However, overall it was hard to know what results I would get for tools that span across categories; is "free" going to mean "completely free all the time" as in open source software? Also, I wondered about radio buttons versus checkboxes as I might want more than 1 category (like free or freemium, just not fully paid). |
| Shawn Lawton Henry | ||
| Carlos Duarte |
|
|
| Brent Bakken |
|
I am okay with Cost Model category. Could we add a pop-up definition to define/describe the cost models? The same definition(s) should be used when someone is submitting a tool to the list. Use a little "i" icon to indicate more information or description. |
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| I agree with having this category called "Cost Model". |
|
| I'm OK with it; please consider my comments in GitHub (or below) for Editors' discretion. |
|
| I will approve only after my comments in GitHub (or below) are addressed. | |
| I abstain and accept the decision of the group. | |
| fyi, I added some comments in GitHub to consider for future versions. |
5. License
summary | by responder | by choice
The category "License" reflects the wide range of possible licenses. There is no one simple taxonomy to describe all the different types, and it would very quickly get quite legal. Similarly to the previous category, this provides higher-level description and users of the list will need to do further research on the exact details.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I agree with having this category called "License". | 4 |
| I'm OK with it; please consider my comments in GitHub (or below) for Editors' discretion. | 2 |
| I will approve only after my comments in GitHub (or below) are addressed. | |
| I abstain and accept the decision of the group. | |
| fyi, I added some comments in GitHub to consider for future versions. |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | License | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Sylvie Duchateau |
|
|
| Kris Anne Kinney |
|
What if you matched "Cost model" and said "License model". I've seen RFP's refer to their different "Licensing models" so maybe that would match what people have seen? |
| Laura Keen |
|
|
| Michele Williams |
|
|
| Shawn Lawton Henry | ||
| Carlos Duarte |
|
Consider adding "Freeware" to distinguish closed source but free products from open source products (that you can modify). Not sure if adding "Subscription" is getting too detailed, since that would be a commercial license. |
| Brent Bakken |
|
Don't see a problem with this, we use a similar category in the Evaluation Tool List. |
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| I agree with having this category called "License". |
|
| I'm OK with it; please consider my comments in GitHub (or below) for Editors' discretion. |
|
| I will approve only after my comments in GitHub (or below) are addressed. | |
| I abstain and accept the decision of the group. | |
| fyi, I added some comments in GitHub to consider for future versions. |
6. Other
summary | by responder | by choice
The category "Other" currently only has the option "Public accessibility statement available". It should help find tools with such information more easily. Right now we don't have other options in this category - can you think of other options for this category?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I agree with having this category called "Other". | 3 |
| I'm OK with it; please consider my comments in GitHub (or below) for Editors' discretion. | 3 |
| I will approve only after my comments in GitHub (or below) are addressed. | |
| I abstain and accept the decision of the group. | |
| fyi, I added some comments in GitHub to consider for future versions. |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | Other | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Sylvie Duchateau |
|
|
| Kris Anne Kinney |
|
What about VPAT? If a company has one that's great - if they don't it may start the conversation for them about getting one so they can advertise it. What about promoting the WCAG EM Report tool as well as a way for them to list their conformance? |
| Laura Keen |
|
Not sure if this is a good idea but what about multi-lingual? |
| Michele Williams |
|
Maybe accessibility help desk? |
| Shawn Lawton Henry | ||
| Carlos Duarte |
|
Not sure if this is a good place to add information about the platform required to run the tool (Web/Windows/Mac/...) or if there should be a category for it. |
| Brent Bakken |
|
Maybe an option for "Tool Tutorial or Training Available" |
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| I agree with having this category called "Other". |
|
| I'm OK with it; please consider my comments in GitHub (or below) for Editors' discretion. |
|
| I will approve only after my comments in GitHub (or below) are addressed. | |
| I abstain and accept the decision of the group. | |
| fyi, I added some comments in GitHub to consider for future versions. |
7. ATAG Requirements
summary | by responder | by choice
The categories "Content Editor Features" and "End User Features" reflect the Guidelines of the Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG). We previously had a review of these categories and decided to provide a link with further information about the options.
Please do not review the detailed wording at this stage, we will review this later. For now please focus on the presentation and usefulness of these two categories - does this help you/others find the right tools?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I agree with having these two categories as-is. | 3 |
| I'm OK with them; please consider my comments in GitHub (or below) for Editors' discretion. | 2 |
| I will approve only after my comments in GitHub (or below) are addressed. | |
| I abstain and accept the decision of the group. | 1 |
| fyi, I added some comments in GitHub to consider for future versions. |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | ATAG Requirements | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Sylvie Duchateau |
|
|
| Kris Anne Kinney |
|
If someone is having trouble creating content for students/clients because of the limitations of the tool they are using this will hopefully help them find a tool that works for their user's needs. So I agree to have these categories. May just want to specify they map back to ATAG so people understand what they are for. |
| Laura Keen |
|
|
| Michele Williams |
|
As mentioned at the top of the survey, this one was a bit jarring at first. There's a lot of detail that I wouldn't want to read through in order to filter the results - I'd expect to read this level of detail as I explore the results. However, segmenting "content editor" from "end user" makes absolute sense to call out, since it will even trigger the user to think more specifically about their requirements. |
| Shawn Lawton Henry | ||
| Carlos Duarte |
|
|
| Brent Bakken |
|
I think these categories are good. I am just having a hard time understanding from the list of examples what distinguishes the two categories from each other. I get the one is for editor features and the other is user features, but the types of information listed does not seem particularly helpful when so many are very similar. Maybe this is because the wording is just placeholder wording right now?.?. |
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| I agree with having these two categories as-is. |
|
| I'm OK with them; please consider my comments in GitHub (or below) for Editors' discretion. |
|
| I will approve only after my comments in GitHub (or below) are addressed. | |
| I abstain and accept the decision of the group. |
|
| fyi, I added some comments in GitHub to consider for future versions. |
8. More Categories
We plan to add a new category for "Tool Languages" (or similar wording) representing the user interface languages supported by the tool. These could sometimes be more than a hundred languages, so would need a widget with show more/less functionality. We might also add a new category for "Supported Formats" (or similar wording) representing the formats that the tools can work with. For example, HTML, CSS, SVG, PNG, MP4, and such. The issue is that also this list gets very long and unwieldy, especially if we add versions for these formats. What are your thoughts on these additional categories and do you have other ideas? Please add your thoughts as comments in GitHub or below.
Details
| Responder | Comments |
|---|---|
| Sylvie Duchateau | May be give the possibility to type a keyword to have a list of categories with less results: for example, typing the three first characters of a language would only display the languages beginning with the typed characters. Same suggestion for the different formats. |
| Kris Anne Kinney | If we can expand/collapse some of the filters I think it will help in the case of these lists where it could get rather large. I would also suggest alphabetizing these lists so someone can find what they need easier(?). Can we do a search/sort in that long list to help people put in a few characters and their filter sorts to the top? Just trying to think of ways to help someone find what they need without too much of a cognitive load. Really long lists could overwhelm some people trying to use the tool. |
| Laura Keen | I ok with adding these other categories. It will be useful to have metrics on what users are selecting and what categories get used the most/least. |
| Michele Williams | Re: Tool Languages - That feels heavy but I suppose it's necessary. Will the page at least default to the current language of the page? Can people search for a language? Also, seems you'll want to only show languages available in the results, right? (That is, don't show a language that will result in 0 results.) Re: Supported Formats - I wonder what the use case is for this and how prominent this need is for it to become a filter versus just something I explore based on the results. I can't imagine this one yet. |
| Shawn Lawton Henry | |
| Carlos Duarte | I find both of those categories to be very useful. About other categories, see my suggestion on question "6. Other" for a possible category for the platform required by the tool. |
| Brent Bakken | I think adding these are okay as long as we use an interface for management of long lists. If they can be collapsed by default and ignored by most until needed, then it seems having these would be a benefit. |
9. Other Thoughts
Any other thoughts or comments on the filter categories and options?
Details
| Responder | Comments |
|---|---|
| Sylvie Duchateau | No other thoughts. |
| Kris Anne Kinney | |
| Laura Keen | |
| Michele Williams | |
| Shawn Lawton Henry | Thank you for the opportunity to provide early feedback. I am counting on EOWG participants and Chairs to cover this well, and will leave it to them. (I understand that comments later could be disruptive and I will avoid that. :-) |
| Carlos Duarte | |
| Brent Bakken | None at this time. I like the direction the filters is going. Great work. |
More details on responses
- Sylvie Duchateau: last responded on 21, September 2021 at 14:41 (UTC)
- Kris Anne Kinney: last responded on 22, September 2021 at 13:15 (UTC)
- Laura Keen: last responded on 23, September 2021 at 18:00 (UTC)
- Michele Williams: last responded on 23, September 2021 at 20:19 (UTC)
- Shawn Lawton Henry: last responded on 24, September 2021 at 22:26 (UTC)
- Carlos Duarte: last responded on 27, September 2021 at 09:48 (UTC)
- Brent Bakken: last responded on 27, September 2021 at 21:31 (UTC)
Non-responders
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
- Eric Velleman
- Andrew Arch
- Shadi Abou-Zahra
- Kazuhito Kidachi
- Sharron Rush
- Jedi Lin
- David Sloan
- Mary Jo Mueller
- Vicki Menezes Miller
- 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
- Mark Palmer
- Jade Matos Carew
- Sonsoles López Pernas
- Greta Krafsig
- Jayne Schurick
- Billie Johnston
- Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
- Brian Elton
- 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