W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire EOWG Holiday Homework

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 2018-12-18 to 2019-01-07.

11 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Transcript with Description format
  2. ARRM framework - the Decision Tree
  3. ARRM role definition
  4. AARM - Additional comments/questions
  5. Business Case integration/update - content review

1. Transcript with Description format

summary | by responder | by choice

The Video Introduction to Web Accessibility and W3C Standards page has a Transcript with Description. We will probably ask for translations of that page as part of the beta-phase of the translations project starting very soon. Also, we are considering adding Transcript with Description to other video pages.

Please read and think about the use cases and considerations in GitHub 12 transcript with description format.

Do you have any comments on the table format? Or other?
Do you support adding them to the Perspectives Video pages?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I looked at the table format, use cases, and considerations. I don't have any input on including a number column or not. I'm fine with either way. 1
I looked at the table format, use cases, and considerations. I think it should not include a number column. 5
I looked at the table format, use cases, and considerations. I think it should include a number column. I put the rationale in GitHub 12 (or, I'm not comfortable with GitHub so I put them in the Comments field below).
I added other comments about the format to GitHub 12 (or, I'm not comfortable with GitHub so I put them in the Comments field below). 2
I support adding Transcript with Description to the bottom of the Perspectives Video pages. 6
I do not support adding Transcript with Description to the bottom of the Perspectives Video pages, for the reasons in the Comments field below.
I did not have time to review and will by the date in the comments below.
I will not have time to review this, will pass on commenting, and accept the direction of the larger group. 3

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Transcript with Description formatComments
Stéphane Deschamps [x] I have no strong feeling on the question and accept whatever the group decides.

I have reviewed issue 12, and for the record:
First time I hear about numbers and/or timestamps being added to a transcript. I've only done transcripts of my own work (conferences) so I may not be a good enough reviewer for this question and will abide to the group's decision.
Lewis Phillips
  • I added other comments about the format to GitHub 12 (or, I'm not comfortable with GitHub so I put them in the Comments field below).
  • I support adding Transcript with Description to the bottom of the Perspectives Video pages.
Brigitta Norton
  • I looked at the table format, use cases, and considerations. I don't have any input on including a number column or not. I'm fine with either way.
  • I support adding Transcript with Description to the bottom of the Perspectives Video pages.
Denis Boudreau
  • I will not have time to review this, will pass on commenting, and accept the direction of the larger group.
Rachel Comerford
  • I will not have time to review this, will pass on commenting, and accept the direction of the larger group.
Laura Keen
  • I looked at the table format, use cases, and considerations. I think it should not include a number column.
 I think including timestamps can help with findability for longer videos. It allows users to locate content without re-watching the entire video to watch a clip they're looking for.
Amanda Mace
  • I looked at the table format, use cases, and considerations. I think it should not include a number column.
  • I support adding Transcript with Description to the bottom of the Perspectives Video pages.
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I support adding Transcript with Description to the bottom of the Perspectives Video pages.
  • I will not have time to review this, will pass on commenting, and accept the direction of the larger group.
Eric Eggert
  • I looked at the table format, use cases, and considerations. I think it should not include a number column.
  • I added other comments about the format to GitHub 12 (or, I'm not comfortable with GitHub so I put them in the Comments field below).
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • I looked at the table format, use cases, and considerations. I think it should not include a number column.
  • I support adding Transcript with Description to the bottom of the Perspectives Video pages.
Sharron Rush
  • I looked at the table format, use cases, and considerations. I think it should not include a number column.
  • I support adding Transcript with Description to the bottom of the Perspectives Video pages.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I looked at the table format, use cases, and considerations. I don't have any input on including a number column or not. I'm fine with either way.
  • Brigitta Norton
I looked at the table format, use cases, and considerations. I think it should not include a number column.
  • Laura Keen
  • Amanda Mace
  • Eric Eggert
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
  • Sharron Rush
I looked at the table format, use cases, and considerations. I think it should include a number column. I put the rationale in GitHub 12 (or, I'm not comfortable with GitHub so I put them in the Comments field below).
I added other comments about the format to GitHub 12 (or, I'm not comfortable with GitHub so I put them in the Comments field below).
  • Lewis Phillips
  • Eric Eggert
I support adding Transcript with Description to the bottom of the Perspectives Video pages.
  • Lewis Phillips
  • Brigitta Norton
  • Amanda Mace
  • Sylvie Duchateau
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
  • Sharron Rush
I do not support adding Transcript with Description to the bottom of the Perspectives Video pages, for the reasons in the Comments field below.
I did not have time to review and will by the date in the comments below.
I will not have time to review this, will pass on commenting, and accept the direction of the larger group.
  • Denis Boudreau
  • Rachel Comerford
  • Sylvie Duchateau

2. ARRM framework - the Decision Tree

summary | by responder | by choice

Please consider the ARRM framework from the point of view of implementing it to process the task list into appropriate general role categories. A goal is to keep the roles simple yet complete. You may want to choose from the Accessibility Checkpoint Master List and process one of them through the 5-step process. Consider things like:

  • Is this a good basis for sorting through the task list?
  • Is the process clear?
  • Is UX the correct category for default (things that fit no where else)?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I reviewed and am pleased with the process - nothing to add. 7
I reviewed and added my impressions, suggestions, and comments below. 2
I did not have time to review but expect to do so by the date in the comments below.
I will not have time to review this project, will pass on commenting, and accept the direction of the larger group. 2

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder ARRM framework - the Decision Tree
Stéphane Deschamps
  • I reviewed and am pleased with the process - nothing to add.
Lewis Phillips
  • I reviewed and am pleased with the process - nothing to add.
Brigitta Norton
  • I reviewed and am pleased with the process - nothing to add.
Denis Boudreau
  • I reviewed and am pleased with the process - nothing to add.
Rachel Comerford
  • I will not have time to review this project, will pass on commenting, and accept the direction of the larger group.
Laura Keen
  • I reviewed and am pleased with the process - nothing to add.
Amanda Mace
  • I reviewed and am pleased with the process - nothing to add.
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I will not have time to review this project, will pass on commenting, and accept the direction of the larger group.
Eric Eggert I have been out of the office/on vacation for most of the runtime of the survey, so I did not get to review the ARRM resources.
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • I reviewed and am pleased with the process - nothing to add.
  • I reviewed and added my impressions, suggestions, and comments below.
 I didn't have a chance to run examples through the process. Having UX as the ending is interesting. I'm not sure what would end up in the "business (non-technical) requirement" category -- although I think something was said in the meeting that makes sense to me, but I've forgotten it. :-/

I appreciate that Denis, Bill, Sean, and Stéphane have put a lot of thought into this, and I have nothing to add. I support moving forward with this -- and with what I understood them to say in the teleconference that as they work thought it there may be some tweaks.
Sharron Rush
  • I reviewed and added my impressions, suggestions, and comments below.
 I have some questions about what we now call "checkpoints." I think we need to find another term.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I reviewed and am pleased with the process - nothing to add.
  • Stéphane Deschamps
  • Lewis Phillips
  • Brigitta Norton
  • Denis Boudreau
  • Laura Keen
  • Amanda Mace
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
I reviewed and added my impressions, suggestions, and comments below.
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
  • Sharron Rush
I did not have time to review but expect to do so by the date in the comments below.
I will not have time to review this project, will pass on commenting, and accept the direction of the larger group.
  • Rachel Comerford
  • Sylvie Duchateau

3. ARRM role definition

summary | by responder | by choice

The roles used within the ARRM framework are defined to keep the system simple and customizable within the environment of the organization that adopts it. Roles are deliberately kept in generalized, simple categories that are broad enough to encompass tasks needed to meet all of the ARRM checkpoints. Please review the ARRM role definitions and consider if the role categories are sufficiently defined.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I reviewed the roles and they seem clear and sufficient. 5
I reviewed the roles but some things were not entirely clear to me. My questions are in the comments below. 2
I have a strong suggestion (detailed in the comments below) to improve the role definitions . 1
I will not have time to review, so I will pass on commenting, and accept the definitioons approved by EOWG. 2

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

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder ARRM role definition
Stéphane Deschamps
  • I reviewed the roles and they seem clear and sufficient.
Lewis Phillips
  • I reviewed the roles and they seem clear and sufficient.
Brigitta Norton
  • I have a strong suggestion (detailed in the comments below) to improve the role definitions .
 Would it be worth adding FE frameworks (Angular, REACT, etc) to the list of technologies?
Denis Boudreau
  • I reviewed the roles and they seem clear and sufficient.
Rachel Comerford
  • I will not have time to review, so I will pass on commenting, and accept the definitioons approved by EOWG.
Laura Keen
  • I reviewed the roles and they seem clear and sufficient.
Amanda Mace
  • I reviewed the roles and they seem clear and sufficient.
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I will not have time to review, so I will pass on commenting, and accept the definitioons approved by EOWG.
Eric Eggert I have been out of the office/on vacation for most of the runtime of the survey, so I did not get to review the ARRM resources.
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • I reviewed the roles but some things were not entirely clear to me. My questions are in the comments below.
I'm missing the big picture of how these fit in. I expected these Roles to match the Decision Tree.
Sharron Rush
  • I reviewed the roles but some things were not entirely clear to me. My questions are in the comments below.
I still have a bit of discomfort about the how broad the roles are and expect that when used in actual practice, organizations are likely to further divide responsibilities within categories that are listed here as sub-roles. Not sure what to suggest since, as others pointed out, different orgs have their own ways of defining and naming various roles. Just an alert that we may try to get that specific feedback as people begin to use and apply the framework.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I reviewed the roles and they seem clear and sufficient.
  • Stéphane Deschamps
  • Lewis Phillips
  • Denis Boudreau
  • Laura Keen
  • Amanda Mace
I reviewed the roles but some things were not entirely clear to me. My questions are in the comments below.
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
  • Sharron Rush
I have a strong suggestion (detailed in the comments below) to improve the role definitions .
  • Brigitta Norton
I will not have time to review, so I will pass on commenting, and accept the definitioons approved by EOWG.
  • Rachel Comerford
  • Sylvie Duchateau

4. AARM - Additional comments/questions

EO review so far has generated a great deal of excitement over the progress so far and the eventual usefulness of the tool for teams of all sizes. Please add any additional comments or questions about the development of this awesome resource. Big thanks for this great foundational work to Denis, Bill, and Sean and to Stéphane who recently joined them!

Details

Responder AARM - Additional comments/questions
Stéphane Deschamps
Lewis Phillips
Brigitta Norton
Denis Boudreau Obviously, I consider everything to be ok for now, but I expect that additional brains looking into this will bring up a lot of good points... that's the whole point of the exercise! :)
Rachel Comerford
Laura Keen I cannot say enough about this resource. It is thorough and seems to cover every case/situation/role in a simple clear cut way. The framework is so much needed to help break down the accessibility lifecycle for organizations that don't know where to begin.

Is it ok to share this in-process resource with others at the Library?

The decision tree examples are relevant and well written. I appreciate Example 5 as so many co-workers I deal with get this wrong, "If the body copy completely covers the intended content of the image then should be documented so developers will treat it as decorative. This is generally a best practice since it benefits all users."
Amanda Mace
Sylvie Duchateau
Eric Eggert I have been out of the office/on vacation for most of the runtime of the survey, so I did not get to review the ARRM resources.
Shawn Lawton Henry I'd like us soon to settle on terminology for the statements/requirements/checkpoints -- so that we "socialize" them consistently.

Some thoughts on these options:
* "checkpoints" - obviously that is the terminology used in WCAG 1.0 for something a bit different. For this reason, I'd rather not use that term. However, given WCAG 1.0 is so old and soon to be formally "Superseded", it's probably not a big problem
* "requirements" - I think it several WAI resources we talk about "accessibility requirements" generally. Also, "Requirements" is a W3C term for something different. For these reasons, I'd rather not use the term.
* "statements" - we use "accessibility statements" for something different <https://www.w3.org/WAI/planning/statements/>; however, I think they are do very different, that it wouldn't cause (much) confusion. Of the 3 options, this is my preference.

I do not feel strongly about any of that.

Perhaps there's another term that's even better?

---

People really, really want this resource! I encourage Denis, Bill, Sean, Stéphane, and EOWG to continue to work on getting it out as soon as feasible. It seems this is a resource that can safely be put forth while it is being refined.
Sharron Rush I agree with Laura that this is a very useful resource and have noted that she is eager to share it. Maybe we can talk about getting to a stable draft that can be made public while the team works through assigning the rest of the questions.

I also note Shawn's point about use of the word "checkpoint." There is an unfortunate risk of confusing people with the reference to WCAG checkpoints or accessibility checkpoints since that is a legacy terms that still has broad use when referring to success criteria. I think we must find another word for those requirements and begin using it so that we don't add to confusion.


5. Business Case integration/update - content review

summary | by responder | by choice

Now that the Business Case has published, the references to it in the other EO resources need review and may need editing. With the release of the updated Business Case for Digital Accessibility, we need to update the title of the resource throughout the WAI website. We may need to update some wording about the business case, and possibly change some links and/or validate that current links are working properly. We are looking for someone willing to complete the tasks listed in detail on the EOWG meeting page. Please review the tasks in Work for this Week and indicate if you could dedicate the time to work on that. Thanks!

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I reviewed the tasks and think I can do it - sign me up! 1
I reviewed the tasks and would be willing to help but need to know more about expectations and timeline. 3
Sorry, can't help with this task at this time. 6

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

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Business Case integration/update - content review
Stéphane Deschamps
  • Sorry, can't help with this task at this time.
Lewis Phillips
  • I reviewed the tasks and would be willing to help but need to know more about expectations and timeline.
Brigitta Norton
  • I reviewed the tasks and think I can do it - sign me up!
Denis Boudreau
  • Sorry, can't help with this task at this time.
Rachel Comerford
  • Sorry, can't help with this task at this time.
Laura Keen
  • I reviewed the tasks and would be willing to help but need to know more about expectations and timeline.
Amanda Mace
  • I reviewed the tasks and would be willing to help but need to know more about expectations and timeline.
Sylvie Duchateau
  • Sorry, can't help with this task at this time.
Eric Eggert
  • Sorry, can't help with this task at this time.
 I have been out of the office/on vacation for most of the runtime of the survey, so I did not get to review Work for this Week.
Shawn Lawton Henry
Sharron Rush
  • Sorry, can't help with this task at this time.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I reviewed the tasks and think I can do it - sign me up!
  • Brigitta Norton
I reviewed the tasks and would be willing to help but need to know more about expectations and timeline.
  • Lewis Phillips
  • Laura Keen
  • Amanda Mace
Sorry, can't help with this task at this time.
  • Stéphane Deschamps
  • Denis Boudreau
  • Rachel Comerford
  • Sylvie Duchateau
  • Eric Eggert
  • Sharron Rush

More details on responses

  • Stéphane Deschamps: last responded on 24, December 2018 at 08:16 (UTC)
  • Lewis Phillips: last responded on 26, December 2018 at 18:48 (UTC)
  • Brigitta Norton: last responded on 31, December 2018 at 12:15 (UTC)
  • Denis Boudreau: last responded on 2, January 2019 at 19:45 (UTC)
  • Rachel Comerford: last responded on 4, January 2019 at 13:19 (UTC)
  • Laura Keen: last responded on 4, January 2019 at 14:03 (UTC)
  • Amanda Mace: last responded on 7, January 2019 at 03:08 (UTC)
  • Sylvie Duchateau: last responded on 7, January 2019 at 15:47 (UTC)
  • Eric Eggert: last responded on 7, January 2019 at 17:06 (UTC)
  • Shawn Lawton Henry: last responded on 8, January 2019 at 21:40 (UTC)
  • Sharron Rush: last responded on 9, January 2019 at 15:45 (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. Jedi Lin
  6. David Sloan
  7. Mary Jo Mueller
  8. Vicki Menezes Miller
  9. Reinaldo Ferraz
  10. Bill Kasdorf
  11. Cristina Mussinelli
  12. Kevin White
  13. Kevin Rydberg
  14. Adina Halter
  15. Sarah Pulis
  16. Bill Tyler
  17. Gregorio Pellegrino
  18. Ruoxi Ran
  19. Jennifer Chadwick
  20. Sean Kelly
  21. Muhammad Saleem
  22. Sarah Lewthwaite
  23. Daniel Montalvo
  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.