W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire EOWG Weekly Survey - 06 December 2019

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 2019-12-06 to 2019-12-12.

9 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. WAI 5 ability icon set
  2. WCAG-EM Report Tool - Changes Approval
  3. Minutes from Recent Teleconferences
  4. EOWG Teleconference Availability
  5. Other Information to Share

1. WAI 5 ability icon set

summary | by responder | by choice

When we worked on the icons for the end of the Evaluation videos, we said they were fine for the videos, and we wanted to refine them to be used elsewhere.

An updated version of the icons is in an e-mail attachment. (You can ignore the yellow background.)

Description is thin outlines of:

  1. brain in head
  2. hand
  3. eye
  4. side of face with sound waves from mouth
  5. ear

Do you have any comments on these?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
These look great to me! 6
Please consider my mild comments below. 1
Please consider my strong comments below. 1
I abstain from commenting on these icons. 2

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder WAI 5 ability icon setComments
Eric Eggert I do not think they fit our visual language to date. We are using bold icons and fonts and high contrasts. Those 5 icons are a departure from that visual language. I am OK with the icons if we adjust the rest of the design of our materials, using skinnier fonts, less blocky interface elements and use thin lines for all our other icons. While I generally welcome the change as being more friendly and open, we didn't start out with such design elements in mind. Quite contrary the redesign set out to be high contrast and bold fonts & icons.

While the icons look great on their own, nothing about them says “WAI” to me, especially after launching a resource (AV Media) that had very bold icons. It is impossible to judge icons on their own without context and how they interact with other design elements.
Laura Keen
  • These look great to me!
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I abstain from commenting on these icons.
Lewis Phillips
  • These look great to me!
Howard Kramer
  • These look great to me!
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • These look great to me!
  • Please consider my mild comments below.
  • Please consider my strong comments below.
 * Maybe the brain ought to be bigger? I think anatomically it is. :-)
* Would like to see tweaks of the hand -- maybe turned sideways a bit &/or fingers bent a bit.
Vicki Menezes Miller
  • These look great to me!
Jennifer Chadwick
  • These look great to me!
 They are clear and meaningful. Look good to me.
Daniel Montalvo
  • I abstain from commenting on these icons.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
These look great to me!
  • Laura Keen
  • Lewis Phillips
  • Howard Kramer
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
  • Vicki Menezes Miller
  • Jennifer Chadwick
Please consider my mild comments below.
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
Please consider my strong comments below.
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
I abstain from commenting on these icons.
  • Sylvie Duchateau
  • Daniel Montalvo

2. WCAG-EM Report Tool - Changes Approval

summary | by responder | by choice

The WCAG-EM Report Tool has been updated, as detailed below. Please review the changes.

  • Updated WCAG-EM Report Tool
  • Changes made in this version:
    • Added "WCAG Version" pull-down menu in "Step 1: Define Scope"
    • Added corresponding "WCAG Version" field in the generated report
    • Added "WCAG 2.1" / "WCAG 2.0" filters in "Step 4: Audit Sample"
    • First-time selection made in Step 1 pre-selects the filters in Step 4

Note: Make sure to properly test the filtering functionality in "Step 4: Audit Sample". Remember the primary audience for this tool are evaluators with more advanced computer experience.

Please put comments related to the Filtering in Step 4 in GitHub Issue 317.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I agree with the changes, and would be OK with publication as is. 4
I would be OK with publication as is; please consider my comments in GitHub (or below) for Editors' discretion. 3
I would approve publication only after my comments in GitHub (or below) are addressed. 1
I need more time, and will complete the review by the date in the Comments field below.
I abstain and accept the decision of the group. 1
I added some comments in GitHub to consider for later iterations.

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder WCAG-EM Report Tool - Changes ApprovalComments
Eric Eggert
  • I agree with the changes, and would be OK with publication as is.
 Some minor additions in GitHub issues.
Laura Keen
  • I agree with the changes, and would be OK with publication as is.
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I agree with the changes, and would be OK with publication as is.
Lewis Phillips
  • I would be OK with publication as is; please consider my comments in GitHub (or below) for Editors' discretion.
Howard Kramer
  • I agree with the changes, and would be OK with publication as is.
Shawn Lawton Henry +1 for publication once we get agreement on https://github.com/w3c/wcag-em-report-tool/issues/317
Vicki Menezes Miller
  • I abstain and accept the decision of the group.
Jennifer Chadwick
  • I would be OK with publication as is; please consider my comments in GitHub (or below) for Editors' discretion.
 I am good with the format as is. More of a clarification around whether this the complete list of the criteria that will be checked, or if there are more coming (just not included in this draft). Thanks
Daniel Montalvo
  • I would be OK with publication as is; please consider my comments in GitHub (or below) for Editors' discretion.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I agree with the changes, and would be OK with publication as is.
  • Eric Eggert
  • Laura Keen
  • Sylvie Duchateau
  • Howard Kramer
I would be OK with publication as is; please consider my comments in GitHub (or below) for Editors' discretion.
  • Lewis Phillips
  • Jennifer Chadwick
  • Daniel Montalvo
I would approve publication only after my comments in GitHub (or below) are addressed.
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
I need more time, and will complete the review by the date in the Comments field below.
I abstain and accept the decision of the group.
  • Vicki Menezes Miller
I added some comments in GitHub to consider for later iterations.

3. Minutes from Recent Teleconferences

summary | by responder | by choice

Please read or skim recent teleconference meeting minutes. Indicate your approval or concerns with the minutes of recent meetings. The summary and the link to the full minutes is on the 2019 Minutes wiki page.

If you missed any teleconferences, please indicate on the wiki page that you read the minutes — after [done], add your name and date.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I was in the teleconference and I don't have any comments on the minutes. 6
I have reviewed the minutes and have no concerns. 2
I have reviewed the minutes but have concerns, that I explain them below.
I have not read the minutes yet, and have put the date for my review into the comments box. 1

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Minutes from Recent TeleconferencesComments
Eric Eggert
  • I was in the teleconference and I don't have any comments on the minutes.
Laura Keen
  • I was in the teleconference and I don't have any comments on the minutes.
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I have not read the minutes yet, and have put the date for my review into the comments box.
 Until next eowg meeting
Lewis Phillips
  • I was in the teleconference and I don't have any comments on the minutes.
Howard Kramer
  • I was in the teleconference and I don't have any comments on the minutes.
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • I was in the teleconference and I don't have any comments on the minutes.
Vicki Menezes Miller
  • I was in the teleconference and I don't have any comments on the minutes.
Jennifer Chadwick
  • I have reviewed the minutes and have no concerns.
Daniel Montalvo
  • I have reviewed the minutes and have no concerns.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I was in the teleconference and I don't have any comments on the minutes.
  • Eric Eggert
  • Laura Keen
  • Lewis Phillips
  • Howard Kramer
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
  • Vicki Menezes Miller
I have reviewed the minutes and have no concerns.
  • Jennifer Chadwick
  • Daniel Montalvo
I have reviewed the minutes but have concerns, that I explain them below.
I have not read the minutes yet, and have put the date for my review into the comments box.
  • Sylvie Duchateau

4. EOWG Teleconference Availability

Have you updated your EOWG Teleconference Availability lately? (If not, please do so now. Thank you!)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
yes 9
no

Details

Responder EOWG Teleconference Availability
Eric Eggert yes
Laura Keen yes
Sylvie Duchateau yes
Lewis Phillips yes
Howard Kramer yes
Shawn Lawton Henry yes
Vicki Menezes Miller yes
Jennifer Chadwick yes
Daniel Montalvo yes

5. 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
Eric Eggert
Laura Keen
Sylvie Duchateau
Lewis Phillips
Howard Kramer
Shawn Lawton Henry
Vicki Menezes Miller
Jennifer Chadwick I am excited by the resources being created this year and am glad to participate in reviews and contribute my feedback.

I would like to elicit feedback from people in the field working on design, development, testing and writing every day. If it's possible to bear witness / hold local sessions with our customers (Siteimprove) or conduct some workshop sessions with those in the field around the new resources, I'd love to facilitate this kind of engagement and feedback. If it makes sense and is valuable.
Daniel Montalvo

More details on responses

  • Eric Eggert: last responded on 8, December 2019 at 14:52 (UTC)
  • Laura Keen: last responded on 9, December 2019 at 20:15 (UTC)
  • Sylvie Duchateau: last responded on 10, December 2019 at 15:40 (UTC)
  • Lewis Phillips: last responded on 11, December 2019 at 15:34 (UTC)
  • Howard Kramer: last responded on 12, December 2019 at 03:16 (UTC)
  • Shawn Lawton Henry: last responded on 12, December 2019 at 04:48 (UTC)
  • Vicki Menezes Miller: last responded on 12, December 2019 at 16:05 (UTC)
  • Jennifer Chadwick: last responded on 12, December 2019 at 17:05 (UTC)
  • Daniel Montalvo: last responded on 12, December 2019 at 17:48 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Eric Velleman
  2. Andrew Arch
  3. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  4. Kazuhito Kidachi
  5. Sharron Rush
  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. Ahmath Bamba MBACKE
  15. Adina Halter
  16. Denis Boudreau
  17. Sarah Pulis
  18. Bill Tyler
  19. Gregorio Pellegrino
  20. Ruoxi Ran
  21. Sean Kelly
  22. Muhammad Saleem
  23. Sarah Lewthwaite
  24. Mark Palmer
  25. Jade Matos Carew
  26. Sonsoles López Pernas
  27. Greta Krafsig
  28. Jason McKee
  29. Jayne Schurick
  30. Billie Johnston
  31. Michele Williams
  32. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  33. Brian Elton
  34. Julianna Rowsell
  35. Tabitha Mahoney
  36. Fred Edora
  37. Rabab Gomaa
  38. Marcelo Paiva
  39. Eloisa Guerrero
  40. Leonard Beasley
  41. Frankie Wolf
  42. Supriya Makude
  43. Aleksandar Cindrikj
  44. 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.