W3C WBS Home

Results of Questionnaire UAWG Survey for 7 February 2013

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2013-02-05 to 2013-02-28.

4 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Proposal for Full UAAG Conformance
  2. Proposal for Partial UAAG Conformance - NA
  3. Proposal for Not Compliant Codes
  4. Proposal for Extension or Plug-in

1. Proposal for Full UAAG Conformance

Full UAAG 2.0 Conformance

from email

A user agent conforms to UAAG20 at A, AA or AAA level when it meets the all of the SCs appropriate for the claimed level of conformance. The UA may meet the appropriate SCs wholly on its own or must list extensions necessary to meet specified SCs that the UA cannot meet alone.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 3
Disagree with the proposal 1
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group
Suggest the following changes to the proposal

Details

Responder Proposal for Full UAAG Conformance Full Conformance
Jan Richards Agree with the proposal
Kimberly Patch Agree with the proposal
Greg Lowney Disagree with the proposal Why were the proposed response codes included for Not Applicable (N/A) and Not Compliant (NC), but not for Compliant (C)?

Is the consensus then to go with the scheme where even a single NA means the product cannot rate (full) compliance? As noted before that's not my preference, but I'll defer to the group if I'm outvoted.

Using the term "extension" in this way without defining it could lead to problems. Elsewhere extensions are differentiated from plug-ins, but don't you want to cover and allow both? This wording would also prohibit relying on and citing utilities that stand alone (e.g. assistive technology); is that intentional?

Simon Harper Agree with the proposal

2. Proposal for Partial UAAG Conformance - NA

Partial UAAG 2.0 Conformance

from email

This conformance option may be selected when a user agent is unable to meet one or more success criteria because of intrinsic limitations of the platform. The SC marked with Not Applicable (NA) conformance should explain what platform features are missing.

User-Agent A conforms to the following Success Criteria:
all met SC are listed.

The following SC are listed as NA using the codes below:
all NA SC are listed

NA:* Not Applicable Codes: (Level A, AA, or AAA)

*NA-Input:* not applicable due to a constrained input set (e.g. an application that reads flight data in XML format from a corporate server, or a help system that only displays HTML files included with the product)

*NA-Platform:* not applicable due constraints of the platform (e.g. color handling when the browser is run on a monochrome device, audio handling on a silent device, video handling on a interactive voice response browser, or interprocess communication on an operating system that does not support multitasking). The conformance should explain what platform features are missing.

*NA-Output:* not applicable due to intentionally limited output modalities (e.g. video handling in a browser that only does audio output even though the platform might support video)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 2
Disagree with the proposal 1
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group
Suggest the following changes to the proposal 1

Details

Responder Proposal for Partial UAAG Conformance - NAPartial Conformance - NA
Jan Richards Suggest the following changes to the proposal In ATAG, we were sort of forced to scope all the SCs more tightly than they are in UAAG with if statements. It does make things kind of wordy.

NA-Input: Perhaps it would be better if the conformance claim just said, the input is constrained by x,y,z. I don't think NA-input should cause conformance to be partial.

NA-Platform: This is definitely a partial conformance thing because it can introduce big problems e.g. if switch or external keyboard access is simply not supported.

NA-Output is a bit odd. If the SC involved configuring within a modality (e.g. volume) then I think the SC would just be N/A if there was no audio, but sometimes accessibility requires use of another modality (e.g. captioning audio/video) in which case I don't think its ok just to say "we don't support the text modality" in our player.
Kimberly Patch Agree with the proposal Minor editing changes – would add "…using the following scheme" to the end of the first paragraph to make it clearer and parallel with #3.
Greg Lowney Disagree with the proposal Not Applicable codes are not just for cases where the platform limitations are responsible, and thus the wording of the first paragraph is incorrect.

I'm confused by the phrase "User-Agent A conforms". Is "User-Agent A" supposed to be placeholder for the name of the user agent discussed by a particular conformance claim document? I'd rephrase this.

Claims of partial conformance should include a list of required configuration changes, extensions, etc., just like claims of full compliance do.

Simon Harper Agree with the proposal

3. Proposal for Not Compliant Codes

Not Compliant Code

from email

The following SC are listed as Not Compliant using the following scheme:
All Non-compliant SC are listed

NC:* Not Compliant codes: (Level A, AA, or AAA)

*NC-Potential:* not compliant but in theory a third party could make it compliant using documented and supported techniques (e.g. the product's extension architecture readily allows adding the required feature; this is also allowed if the source is made available and the claimant believes it could be modified to add compliance with less than one person-week of effort, thus giving incentive for open source

*NC-Unsupported:* may be compliant but not using documented and supported techniques

*NC-Impossible:* not compliant even with undocumented and unsupported techniques

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 2
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group 2
Suggest the following changes to the proposal

Details

Responder Proposal for Not Compliant CodesFull Conformance
Jan Richards Neutral, will accept consensus of the group OK, but I'm not sure of the incentive for choosing between these.
Kimberly Patch Agree with the proposal minor edit: missing ")" at the end of the third paragraph
Greg Lowney Neutral, will accept consensus of the group I don't think it's necessary to repeat the "(Level A, AA, or AAA)" as that's associated with the SC not with the answer (Not Compliant code).

Do people want to encourage people writing conformance claims to separate out the SC by response, providing three lists of SC with which the product complies, N/A, and does not comply (as is implied by the opening sentence here)? I had imagined one form where all the SC were listed in order, each with its appropriate response code.

Missing asterisk before "NC:*" etc. (to indicate bold text).

Is it actually OK to use the term "non-compliant SC" to mean an SC with which the user agent is non-compliant?
Simon Harper Agree with the proposal

4. Proposal for Extension or Plug-in

Extension or Plug-in

from email

If the following two conditions are met then it is an extension or plug-in:

It is launched by, or extends the functionality of a platform-based application, and
Post-launch user interaction is included in, or is within the bounds of the platform-based application

This includes most extensions and plugins (e.g. media players). It excludes AT, as they are standalone applications separate from the browser (rule 2 above). It excludes web-based application plugins (see the definition below).

UAAG 2.0 Conformance for Extension (Level A, AA, or AAA):

This option may be used for extension or plug-in with very limited functionality. Conformance for an extension or plugin can be claimed for specific SCs and the SCs related to preference settings, toolbar settings, documentation, and programmatic access.

The conformance claim must list all browsers and versions with which the extension operates.

The level of conformance (A, AA, or AAA) is determined as above except that: (1) for any "no" answers, the extension (plug-in, etc.) must not prevent the success criteria from being met by another user agent extension as part of a complete user agent system and (2) the user agent extension (plug-in, etc.) must meet any requirements applying to all functionality (e.g. to be resizable, to provide documentation, etc.).

Note: User agent Extensions would not be able to meet conformance if they prevent additional user agent components from meeting the failed success criteria (e.g., for security reasons).

NA-Component: not applicable to the limited functionality provided by this user agent component, plug-in, or extension (e.g. SC relating to rendering content would not apply to a browser extension that adds additional menu commands but does not itself render any content)

Example:

A "mouseless browsing" extension allows the following listed browsers (UA1, UA2) to meet UAAG success criterion 2.3.3 ("Direct activation of Enabled Elements: The user can move directly to and activate any enabled element in rendered content."). Additionally we meet these SCs related to user interface components (Guideline 2.1 2.3.4, 2.7.1, 2.7.1, 2.8.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.2). All other SC are rated NA-Extension.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 2
Disagree with the proposal 1
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group
Suggest the following changes to the proposal 1

Details

Responder Proposal for Extension or Plug-inExtensions & PlugIns
Jan Richards Suggest the following changes to the proposal
Kimberly Patch Agree with the proposal Minor edit, I would write out "assistive technology applications" in the third paragraph.
Greg Lowney Disagree with the proposal It says "any 'no' answers" but elsewhere in the proposal the "NC" or "Non-Compliant" is used, rather than "no".

The definition still doesn't limit it to things related to user agents or web technologies. The definition also doesn't actually exclude web-based anything, despite the later paragraph retroactively noting that they're excluded.

In the example, I think there are lot of additional SC that the extension would have to comply with, e.g. 1.4 Provide text configuration.

I would not phrase the example as if it were the actual text of a conformance claim document (e.g. "we meet these SC"). I assume there will be a form to be filled out, etc., and this implies that most of the info would be in a single, free-style paragraph.

I'd change wording to "It excludes AT *that are* stand-alone applications..."

All the NC codes that are available for user agents are also available for user agent extensions and plug-ins, not just (NC-Components).
Simon Harper Agree with the proposal

More details on responses

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
  2. Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
  3. Eric Hansen <ehansen@ets.org>
  4. Markku Hakkinen <mhakkinen@ets.org>
  5. Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
  6. Kelly Ford <kelly.ford@microsoft.com>
  7. Peter Parente <pparent@us.ibm.com>
  8. Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
  9. Takeshi Kurosawa <kurosawa-takeshi@mitsue.co.jp>
  10. Alan Cantor <alan@cantoraccess.com>
  11. Jeanne F Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
  12. he wen <rockywen@tencent.com>
  13. Henny Swan <hswan@paciellogroup.com>
  14. Shaohang Yang <shaohang.ysh@alibaba-inc.com>

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


Maintained by Laurent Carcone, from a development by Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (dom@w3.org) on an original design by Michael Sperberg-McQueen $Id: showv.php3,v 1.127 2015-02-04 08:52:34 carcone Exp $. Please send bug reports and request for enhancements to lcarcone@w3.org with w3t-sys@w3.org copied (if your mail client supports it, send mail directly to the right persons)