W3C

Results of Questionnaire Evaluation Videos, Butterfly Review for a few things

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 2020-01-21 to 2020-01-28.

11 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Review level
  2. Assistive Technology Icons
  3. Video 4 Visual
  4. Endplate

1. Review level

summary | by responder | by choice

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I reviewed these thoroughly. 6
I skimmed them. 4
I can review and comment by the date below.
I pass on this review, and accept the decisions of the Working Group.

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Review levelComments
Hidde de Vries
  • I skimmed them.
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I skimmed them.
Kris Anne Kinney
Eric Eggert
  • I reviewed these thoroughly.
Kevin White
  • I reviewed these thoroughly.
Brent Bakken
  • I reviewed these thoroughly.
Thank you for the chance for a final review.
Shawn Henry
  • I reviewed these thoroughly.
Mark Palmer
  • I skimmed them.
Daniel Montalvo
  • I skimmed them.
Laura Keen
  • I reviewed these thoroughly.
Lewis Phillips
  • I reviewed these thoroughly.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I reviewed these thoroughly.
  • Eric Eggert
  • Kevin White
  • Brent Bakken
  • Shawn Henry
  • Laura Keen
  • Lewis Phillips
I skimmed them.
  • Hidde de Vries
  • Sylvie Duchateau
  • Mark Palmer
  • Daniel Montalvo
I can review and comment by the date below.
I pass on this review, and accept the decisions of the Working Group.

2. Assistive Technology Icons

summary | by responder | by choice

See the context and proposed icons in the Assistive Technology Icons wiki page section.

Notes:

  • Closed Captions was already approved by EOWG.
  • Text Resize and Text Telephony were approved in concept, and just needed minor fixes.
  • We'd like EOWG to approve at least 4, if not all.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I support using all of these icons as is. 8
[ED] I support using these icons, and have input for editor's discretion — in the Comments below. 3
[!!] I do not support using one or more of these icons, as explained in the Comments below.
I abstain (not vote) and accept the decisions of the Working Group. 1

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Assistive Technology IconsComments
Hidde de Vries
  • I support using all of these icons as is.
  • [ED] I support using these icons, and have input for editor's discretion — in the Comments below.
I'm a little confused by what's happening in the 'Keyboard' icon. could potentially look more keyboard-like with more keys and without WiFi icon? Something like this: https://cdn2.iconfinder.com/data/icons/personal-computers-outline/512/keyboard_computer_hardware-512.png

(editor's discretion!)
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I abstain (not vote) and accept the decisions of the Working Group.
Kris Anne Kinney
  • I support using all of these icons as is.
Eric Eggert
  • I support using all of these icons as is.
I like them all. Very in our style.
Kevin White
  • [ED] I support using these icons, and have input for editor's discretion — in the Comments below.
Ok, I think I missed the approval of these icons so my comments can be considered minor, unless the icons are being considered for widespread use in which case I would be more concerned.

CC, test size, Braille and keyboard all have a box. The box is the same width but different heights. There are two things that jar: the line weight of each box is different, and the corner edging differs for Braille and keyboard. This may not be an issue if they are not to be shown together that much but the inconsistency jars when they are shown together. I thin kthe CC one is fine, the other three could be brought more inline.

Not sure why the keyboard has wi-fi signal bars. I know wireless keyboards exist but icons are more commonly shown with a wire or with nothing.

Not sure why they keyboard keys look peculiar - I would have expected something cleaner, for example https://cdn2.iconfinder.com/data/icons/personal-computers-outline/512/keyboard_computer_hardware-512.png

The volume control icon has too harsh edging. This is particularly apparent when compared with the keyboard, text phone, and Braille icons. More rounded edging might look a bit better. This example has the rounding for the edging matches the wireless lines: https://yt3.ggpht.com/-uvLtAIh5W6s/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/pUSqOChpgIs/s900-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg
Brent Bakken
  • I support using all of these icons as is.
I like the color chosen for these icons. I think the weight of the lines and detail is good. I support the use of all six icons as needed throughout the videos.
Shawn Henry
  • [ED] I support using these icons, and have input for editor's discretion — in the Comments below.
AT2: Text Resize
[ED-low] There could be even more differentiation between the size of the letters.
[ED-low] I’m used to the letters not touching. Looks like there’s plenty of room for them not to touch.

My opinion on which work best in this context:
1. Closed Captions
2. Text Resize
3. Braille
4. Text Telephone
5. Keyboard
6. Volume Control
Mark Palmer
  • I support using all of these icons as is.
Daniel Montalvo
  • I support using all of these icons as is.
Laura Keen
  • I support using all of these icons as is.
Lewis Phillips
  • I support using all of these icons as is.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I support using all of these icons as is.
  • Hidde de Vries
  • Kris Anne Kinney
  • Eric Eggert
  • Brent Bakken
  • Mark Palmer
  • Daniel Montalvo
  • Laura Keen
  • Lewis Phillips
[ED] I support using these icons, and have input for editor's discretion — in the Comments below.
  • Hidde de Vries
  • Kevin White
  • Shawn Henry
[!!] I do not support using one or more of these icons, as explained in the Comments below.
I abstain (not vote) and accept the decisions of the Working Group.
  • Sylvie Duchateau

3. Video 4 Visual

summary | by responder | by choice

Video 4 download is the final version of the visual content.

Notes:

  • Any additional changes to the visuals will incur additional cost and will cause delay.
  • The voice-over and music is still the draft version, the good ones are not included in this version.
  • The voice-over is already recorded, so we cannot make any chances to what is said.

Changes:

  • 0:05-0:17 column representation (previously too much movement).
  • 0:56-0:57 people in front of computers (previously only people)
  • 1:15-1:31 colors of steps (previously each step different)
  • 1:35-1:43 better green contrast (will be applied to all videos)
  • 1:48-1:52 report more computer'ish (previously pen and paper)
  • 1:53-1:56 less movement, less touching (will be applied to all)
  • 1:58-2:08 new end-plate in action

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I support these visuals as is. 9
[ED] I support using these visuals, and have input for editor's discretion — in the Comments below. 1
[!!] I do not support these visuals, as explained in the Comments below. 1
I abstain (not vote) and accept the decisions of the Working Group.

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Video 4 VisualComments
Hidde de Vries
  • I support these visuals as is.
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I support these visuals as is.
Kris Anne Kinney
  • I support these visuals as is.
Eric Eggert
  • I support these visuals as is.
I love it! The rocket animation is great!

One NON BLOCKING nit pick: When the arrow next to the WCAG bar dissolves, it it shown that the stem and the triangle overlap as they both get transparent. It would be nice (and more professional looking) if this was not visible: https://i.imgur.com/xSuL3cW.png AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A BLOCKING COMMENT. DO **NOT** BLOCK. PUBLISH.
Kevin White
  • I support these visuals as is.
Looks good
Brent Bakken
  • [!!] I do not support these visuals, as explained in the Comments below.
- I like the changes to the WCAG column and arrow advancing up. However, some small adjustments are needed. When the column and arrow fade out, the arrow-head and the arrow-line fade out at a different rate (17 seconds). It is a bit awkward looking as this arrow should be one object. Instead it is like the arrow-head and arrow-column are two separate parts of that one object. Please group them so that the entire arrow fades out. Also, seems like the arrow-head is not exactly centered on top of the arrow-line. Seems a little to the left of the line.
Shawn Henry
  • [ED] I support using these visuals, and have input for editor's discretion — in the Comments below.
I have several comments. They are all optional -- for [ED]/Project-Manager-Shadi/EOWG-participants to decide what to do with.
(Although I don't want to incur extra costs, I think some changes shouldn't incur extra costs, because the animators really did not implement them well at all -- e.g., 1:50 is still *paper* not a computer form.)

If the project manager and Working Group want to call this video done, that is fine with me. Or, if we want to publish this version now and continue to tweak, that is even better. :-)

I did not go over the comments submitted to the animators. Comments below are based on my memory, which could be wrong.

[ED-medium/high] 0:36-0:39 (spaceship) This is way more complex than it should be, it is distracting, and does not match the concept of the text/narration/information structure. Fundamentally – that is, according to the verbal/transcript information -- the spaceship should be the same at the previous items – it is the 5th bullet in the list. I was (mildly) OK with the other items going along conveyor belt into the rocket and it taking off. However, this iteration has way too much movement and change in context – all in just a couple of seconds:
* the 4 items (that should be the same as the spaceship) going to new scene, shrinking, and moving positions from a horizontal line to a 2x2 grid
* a big spaceship appearing
* the 4 now-small items flying into the spaceship
* the spaceship shaking back & forth
* the spaceship igniting
* the spaceship taking off
That complex visual took all my (limited) attention, and I did not hear what was being said. [disclaimer: I’m not good at processing such different audio and visual info at the same time. Many people can.]

[ED-medium] 0:56-0:58 leave the “people with disabilities use the web” image of people in front of computers longer (that’s an important point! :-) and delay showing the odd box for a second or more later

[ED-low] 1:49 We asked for this to look like a computer form, afaik. While they changed the internal animation, it still has the overall dimensions of paper and the top-right corner folded -- that both effectively convey PAPER and not online form.

[ED-low] 0:05 I envisioned the arrow *inside* of the bar (and thicker).

[ED-low/EOWG] 1:54-1:56 The movement of the icons is still too much for my currently fried brain. I understand that it will be fine for most people -- I think EOWG participants already said it was fine for most of them. I just wanted to note it. (Most with my currently-fried-brain that won’t rely on the videos anyway, so OK. :-)

Re-iteration: If the project manager and Working Group want to call this video done, that is fine with me. (Or, if we want to publish this version now, and continue to tweak, that is even better. :-)

Mark Palmer
  • I support these visuals as is.
Daniel Montalvo
  • I support these visuals as is.
Laura Keen
  • I support these visuals as is.
Lewis Phillips
  • I support these visuals as is.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I support these visuals as is.
  • Hidde de Vries
  • Sylvie Duchateau
  • Kris Anne Kinney
  • Eric Eggert
  • Kevin White
  • Mark Palmer
  • Daniel Montalvo
  • Laura Keen
  • Lewis Phillips
[ED] I support using these visuals, and have input for editor's discretion — in the Comments below.
  • Shawn Henry
[!!] I do not support these visuals, as explained in the Comments below.
  • Brent Bakken
I abstain (not vote) and accept the decisions of the Working Group.

4. Endplate

summary | by responder | by choice

See the proposed endplate.You can see it in action in the video in the previous question. Does this implement the changes that we asked for in layout and content?

Note that one endplate is shown, and the same layout would be used for the other videos.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I support this endplate. 10
[ED] I support this endplate, and have input for editor's discretion — in the Comments below. 1
[!!] I do not support this endplate, as explained in the Comments below.
I abstain (not vote) and accept the decisions of the Working Group.

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder EndplateComments
Hidde de Vries
  • I support this endplate.
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I support this endplate.
Kris Anne Kinney
  • I support this endplate.
Eric Eggert
  • I support this endplate.
Perfect!
Kevin White
  • I support this endplate.
Brent Bakken
  • I support this endplate.
Looks good.
Shawn Henry
  • [ED] I support this endplate, and have input for editor's discretion — in the Comments below.
(I don't remember the changes we asked for.)

[ED-high] In the latest video 4 (above), the audio and visual timing is wrong and creates cognitive confusion for my poor tired brain.
But maybe it was changed in the actual voice-over that was recorded?

Audio currently says: “Visit w3.org/W-A-I/evaluation for more information on conformance evaluation of web accessibility.”
Visual during that time is typing out Conformance Evaluation w3.org/W-A-I/evaluation
So the visual and the audio are opposite.
Script says: “For information on web accessibility conformance evaluation, visit w3.o-r-g/W-A-I/evaluation.”
Which would match the current visual OK.

Depending on what the final voice-over says, I’d have different suggestions for what to do with animation of text…


Mark Palmer
  • I support this endplate.
Daniel Montalvo
  • I support this endplate.
Laura Keen
  • I support this endplate.
Lewis Phillips
  • I support this endplate.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I support this endplate.
  • Hidde de Vries
  • Sylvie Duchateau
  • Kris Anne Kinney
  • Eric Eggert
  • Kevin White
  • Brent Bakken
  • Mark Palmer
  • Daniel Montalvo
  • Laura Keen
  • Lewis Phillips
[ED] I support this endplate, and have input for editor's discretion — in the Comments below.
  • Shawn Henry
[!!] I do not support this endplate, as explained in the Comments below.
I abstain (not vote) and accept the decisions of the Working Group.

More details on responses

  • Hidde de Vries: last responded on 22, January 2020 at 04:16 (UTC)
  • Sylvie Duchateau: last responded on 22, January 2020 at 14:35 (UTC)
  • Kris Anne Kinney: last responded on 22, January 2020 at 21:06 (UTC)
  • Eric Eggert: last responded on 23, January 2020 at 09:13 (UTC)
  • Kevin White: last responded on 23, January 2020 at 15:07 (UTC)
  • Brent Bakken: last responded on 23, January 2020 at 21:22 (UTC)
  • Shawn Henry: last responded on 24, January 2020 at 03:38 (UTC)
  • Mark Palmer: last responded on 24, January 2020 at 09:43 (UTC)
  • Daniel Montalvo: last responded on 24, January 2020 at 12:23 (UTC)
  • Laura Keen: last responded on 24, January 2020 at 13:07 (UTC)
  • Lewis Phillips: last responded on 24, January 2020 at 13:22 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Judy Brewer
  2. Eric Velleman
  3. Andrew Arch
  4. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  5. Kazuhito Kidachi
  6. Sharron Rush
  7. Dónal Fitzpatrick
  8. David Sloan
  9. Mary Jo Mueller
  10. Vicki Menezes Miller
  11. Reinaldo Ferraz
  12. Howard Kramer
  13. Vivienne Conway
  14. Bill Kasdorf
  15. Jan McSorley
  16. Cristina Mussinelli
  17. Kevin Rydberg
  18. Adina Halter
  19. Denis Boudreau
  20. Sarah Pulis
  21. Bill Tyler
  22. Gregorio Pellegrino
  23. Amanda Mace
  24. Ian Smith
  25. Ruoxi Ran
  26. Jennifer Chadwick
  27. Carlos Duarte
  28. Sean Kelly
  29. Muhammad Saleem
  30. Sarah Lewthwaite
  31. Ash Harris
  32. Kim Hodges
  33. Estella Oncins
  34. Isaac Durazo
  35. Omar Bonilla
  36. Jade Matos Carew
  37. Sonsoles López Pernas
  38. Greta Krafsig
  39. Dónal Rice
  40. Gerhard Nussbaum
  41. Jason McKee
  42. Valentina Kirinić
  43. Roberto Perez
  44. Letícia Seixas Pereira
  45. Jayne Schurick
  46. Donna Bungard
  47. Vijaya Gowri Perumal
  48. Billie Johnston
  49. Emily Lewis
  50. Michele Williams
  51. Mark McCallum

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