W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire UAWG Survey for 28 February 2013

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2013-02-25 to 2013-04-19.

6 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Changes to the "Definition of a User Agent" from the Introduction
  2. Proposed Introduction: Relationship to WCAG
  3. Use Cases
  4. Conformance
  5. Conformance Requirements
  6. Conformance Claim (Optional)
  7. Conditions on Conformance Claims
  8. Required Components of an UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim
  9. Optional Components of an UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim
  10. "Progress Towards Conformance" Statement
  11. Any new section proposed

1. Changes to the "Definition of a User Agent" from the Introduction

View the link to the 22 February draft to see the changes in context. (Recommended). The Introduction section is informative, not normative, and Jeanne and Kim thought that the examples were better in an informative area, than in the normative glossary. We recommend linking the glossary entry to the Proposed section below.

Previous

Definition of User Agent (from the Introduction to UAAG 2.0)

A user agent is any software that retrieves, renders and facilitates end-user interaction with Web content.

Proposed

Definition of User Agent

[no change] A user agent is any software that retrieves, renders and facilitates end-user interaction with Web content.

The classic user agent is a browser. A media player, which only performs these functions for time-based media, is also a user agent. Web applications and some mobile apps that render web content are also user agents.

For specific advice in determining if software is a user agent, see What Qualifies as a User Agent (Implementing UAAG 2.0). User agents may also include authoring tool features: see Relationship to the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0. For information on the difference between web applications and content see Relationship to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 3
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group 1
Suggest the following changes to the proposal 2

Details

Responder Changes to the "Definition of a User Agent" from the IntroductionIntroduction: Definition of a User Agent
Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal Keep it simple
Greg Lowney Suggest the following changes to the proposal In the definition, the phrase “*and* facilitates end-user interaction” could be an issue, because if people interpret “interaction” as two-way, the definition would exclude, for example, software that displays web-based slideshows but doesn’t allow users to interact with them.

I think the second paragraph would read better as: "There are many different types of user agents, such as web browsers, media players that only perform these functions for time-based media, and document editors that can view or edit web data formats. Most user agents are stand-alone applications, but some run inside other applications or user agents."

Also, the third paragraph is really three entirely unrelated sentences, but putting them into a paragraph format makes it seem like they should flow in some way. I'd recommend either making them into separate paragraphs or a bulleted list, or at least changing them to use parallel construction (e.g. "For specific advice in determining if software is a user agent, see What Qualifies as a User Agent (Implementing UAAG 2.0). For information on the relationship between user agents and authoring tool features, see Relationship to the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0. For information on the difference between web applications and content, see Relationship to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.")
Jim Allan Agree with the proposal
Kimberly Patch Agree with the proposal
Eric Hansen Suggest the following changes to the proposal Add Oxford comma after renders: "A user agent is any software that retrieves, renders, and facilitates end-user interaction with Web content."

Suggestion:
"A “classic” example of a user agent is a browser."
Jan Richards Neutral, will accept consensus of the group

2. Proposed Introduction: Relationship to WCAG

Interestingly, there was no section describing the relationship to WCAG. This proposal represents Kim's and Jeanne's initial thoughts of what belonged in this section. We may want to put additional clarifying information in this informative section.

Previous

none

Proposed

Relationship to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0

The W3C recommendation, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), applies to all web content; UAAG provides additional advice on the application user interface.

Some user agents are used to package web content into non-web-based applications, especially on mobile platforms. If the finished application is used to retrieve, render, and facilitate end-user interaction with Web content of the end-users choosing, then the application should be considered a stand-alone user agent. If the finished application only renders a constrained set of content specified by the developer, then the application might not be considered a user agent. In both cases, the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines apply.

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 1

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

Details

Responder Proposed Introduction: Relationship to WCAGIntroduction: Relationship to WCAG 2.0
Jeanne F Spellman Suggest the following changes to the proposal I think this the place for Jan's thoughts about apps that do not qualify as user agents.
Greg Lowney Disagree with the proposal How about "Where a user agent includes web content, that content is expected to comply with the W3C recommendation Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0). For example, when stand-alone web browser includes documentation written in HTML or images in Portable Network Graphics format, or when a *web-based user agent* is written in HTML and ECMAscript, the HTML, image, and scripts are expected to comply with WCAG 2.0. This applies only to web content that is presented or interacts with the user; it is not required for data used internally by the application even if that data is written in web formats such as XML."

However, if you want to keep the originally proposed text as a starting point, then here are some specific comments on it:

The first paragraph doesn’t make sense to me. It seems to be saying that UAAG is a supplement or extension to WCAG that adds advice on UI, but of course UAAG is much more than that.

The second paragraph’s first sentence confused me as well; what is “Some user agents are used to package web content into non-web-based applications” supposed to mean?

In the phrase “If the finished application…” which application is that?

The second sentence (“If…then the application should be considered a stand-alone user agent” seems to be offering an alternative definition of user agent, which contradicts rather than elucidates the primary one, and it’s not clear whether this test is “and” or “or” the test presented by the whole section on this topic.

The third sentence’s use of “might” makes it nearly useless; could it instead say something like “If the finished application only renders a constrained set of content provided by the developer, that would not be enough for it to be considered a user agent.” (Note “provided” is more accurate than “specified”, as the latter could be something like hard-coding in domain name nytimes.com, in which case the content is specified by not provided by the developer.) Also, does this mean that you also want to change the normative language so that processing web languages doesn’t by itself make something a user agent, it has to be processing web language data that is outside the developer’s control?
Jim Allan Agree with the proposal
Kimberly Patch Agree with the proposal
Eric Hansen
Jan Richards Agree with the proposal

3. Use Cases

One technique that other W3C working groups have found useful to clarify complex issues, is to keep a list of use cases that we want to solve. This technique is also useful to determine whether an idea is in scope for the discussion. "Great idea, but does it solve one of our use cases?"

This list of use cases came from an email from Jeanne several weeks ago. The list did not get extensive discussion, but received general agreement from the group.

This list does not appear anywhere in either document, it is just for our purposes to organize and focus our discussion of Conformance.

Use Cases for Conformance

1) full featured user agents who conform

2) full featured user agents who are missing a few SC, but could conform with external extensions

3) limited user agents who are constrained by the type of content they access -- e.g. media players

4) standalone software that has a user agent component (e.g. Microsoft Word).

5) Mobile apps with constrained content -- e.g. the "American Airlines" app or a reader app for magazine content served online.

6) User agent component (example a) - an extension or plugin that is used in within a user agent to provide a feature needed to meet an SC, e.g. "mouseless browsing" extension to Firefox.

7) User agent component (example b) - a full featured browser or player that is missing some SC but doesn't want to state a specific extension that could complete it.

8) full or limited user agents who are dependent on the underlying platform for some SC, e.g. mobile apps depending on the zoom feature of the device operating system.


You may also find helpful Greg's email on "What is a User Agent?"

Summary

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

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

Details

Responder Use CasesUse Cases
Jeanne F Spellman Suggest the following changes to the list I suggest that we stop trying to serve use case 7. That is proving to be very difficult to structure, and I don't think it serves accessibility in general.
Greg Lowney Neutral, will accept consensus of the group I think having a list of things that aren't covered, as well as the list of those that are, would be very helpful (and I had both in my proposal.)

“Standalone software that has a user agent component” does not seem to be a good way to phrase it, as there’s no distinct line to distinguish between an application that is primarily not a browser but does browsing from a browser that also does some non-browser functions.

Similarly, I’m not sure there’s a clear distinction between media players “that are contrained by the type of content they access” and “full-featured user agents”, which also are usually constrained to a limited set of W3 technologies.

If you want #2 to clearly differ from #7, the former should say that specific external extensions are named.
Jim Allan Neutral, will accept consensus of the group remove 7
Kimberly Patch Agree
Eric Hansen
Jan Richards Suggest the following changes to the list Agree except I don't think 5 is a UA.

4. Conformance

View the Conformance main header section in context of UAAG 2.0

Conformance

This section is normative.

Conformance means that the user agent satisfies the success criteria defined in the guidelines section. This conformance section describes conformance and lists the conformance requirements.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Satisfied with the existing text 4
Suggest the following changes to the existing text 2
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group

Details

Responder ConformanceConformance
Jeanne F Spellman Satisfied with the existing text
Greg Lowney Suggest the following changes to the existing text If the wording is boilerplate it's acceptable, but it might be more accurate to say "This conformance section lists requirements for conformance and conformance claims."
Jim Allan Satisfied with the existing text
Kimberly Patch Satisfied with the existing text
Eric Hansen Suggest the following changes to the existing text "This conformance section describes the three conformance levels and describes how to make a conformance claim [Delete: “and lists the conformance requirements.”]"
Jan Richards Satisfied with the existing text

5. Conformance Requirements

View the Conformance Requirements section in context of UAAG 2.0

Conformance Requirements

In order for a Web page to conform to UAAG 2.0, one of the following levels of conformance is met in full.

Level A: For Level A conformance (the minimum level of conformance), the user agent satisfies all the Level A Success Criteria.

Level AA: For Level AA conformance, the user agent satisfies all the Level A and Level AA Success Criteria.

Level AAA: For Level AAA conformance, the user agent satisfies all the Level A, Level AA and Level AAA Success Criteria.

Note 1: Although conformance can only be achieved at the stated levels, developers are encouraged to report (in their claim) any progress toward meeting success criteria from all levels beyond the achieved level of conformance.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Satisfied with the existing text 3
Suggest the following changes to the existing text 1
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group 2

Details

Responder Conformance RequirementsConformance Requirements
Jeanne F Spellman Satisfied with the existing text
Greg Lowney Satisfied with the existing text
Jim Allan Satisfied with the existing text
Kimberly Patch Neutral, will accept consensus of the group
Eric Hansen Suggest the following changes to the existing text [My revised version:
• Level A: For level A conformance (the minimum level of conformance), the user agent satisfies all the level A success criteria.
• Level AA: For level AA conformance, the user agent satisfies all the level A and level AA success criteria.
• Level AAA: For level AAA conformance, the user agent satisfies all the level A, level AA and level AAA success criteria.
Jan Richards Neutral, will accept consensus of the group - Are we not doing some kind of component conformance?
- don't need to say note 1 since there is only 1

6. Conformance Claim (Optional)

View the Conformance Claim (Optional) section in context of UAAG 2.0

Conformance Claims (Optional)

If a conformance claim is made, the conformance claim must meet the following conditions and include the following information (user agents can conform to UAAG 2.0 without making a claim):

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Satisfied with the existing text 3
Suggest the following changes to the existing text 2
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group

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

Details

Responder Conformance Claim (Optional)Conformance Claims (Optional)
Jeanne F Spellman I think we need to make more clear what the (Optional) is in the title. It seems like optional requirements.
Greg Lowney Suggest the following changes to the existing text It's acceptable but I think it would be clearer if it didn't put the parenthetical before the colon, e.g. "User agents can conform to UAAG 2.0 without making a claim, but if a conformance claim is made, the conformance claim must meet the following conditions and include the following information:".
Jim Allan Satisfied with the existing text
Kimberly Patch Satisfied with the existing text
Eric Hansen Suggest the following changes to the existing text Conformance Claims Are Optional
Conformance claims are optional. A user agent can conform to UAAG 2.0 without a claim being made.
[Delete: “If a conformance claim is made, the conformance claim must meet the following conditions @@and include the following information.”]
Jan Richards Satisfied with the existing text

7. Conditions on Conformance Claims

View the Conditions on Conformance Claims section in context of UAAG 2.0

Conditions on Conformance Claims

* At least one version of the conformance claim must be published on the web as a document meeting level "A" of WCAG 2.0. A suggested metadata description for this document is "UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim".

* Whenever the claimed conformance level is published (e.g. product information website), the URI for the on-line published version of the conformance claim must be included.

* The existence of a conformance claim does not imply that the W3C has reviewed the claim or assured its validity.

* Claimants may be anyone (e.g. user agent developers, journalists, other third parties).

* Claimants are solely responsible for the accuracy of their claims (including claims that include products for which they are not responsible) and keeping claims up to date.

* Claimants are encouraged to claim conformance to the most recent version of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Recommendation.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Satisfied with the existing text 2
Suggest the following changes to the existing text 3
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group 1

Details

Responder Conditions on Conformance ClaimsConditions on Conformance Claims
Jeanne F Spellman Suggest the following changes to the existing text ATAG has pushback from vendors about who can claim. Our phrasing is like waving a red flag. I suggest:

* There are no restrictions on who can make a claim.
* Claimants are solely responsible for the accuracy of their claims.
Greg Lowney Suggest the following changes to the existing text I always prefer to introduce bulleted lists with a paragraph ending in a colon, rather than putting them naked after a heading. For example, "If a conformance claim is made, the conformance claim must meet the following conditions:" Otherwise, the section after the heading doesn't really stand on its own.

I'd also prefer to have this (and the following headings) be H4 instead of H3, as it's clearly subordinate to the preceding H3.

I would like to see it require some contact information for the claimant.

The final bullet item isn't a condition, so it doesn't really fit in this list. We could move it somewhere else, perhaps as a note following the list, but it's not urgent.
Jim Allan Satisfied with the existing text
Kimberly Patch Satisfied with the existing text
Eric Hansen Suggest the following changes to the existing text Conditions on Conformance Claims
Following are conditions on conformance claims:
• At least one version of the conformance claim must be published on the web as a document meeting level A of WCAG 2.0. A suggested metadata description for this document is found in "UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim".
• Whenever the claimed conformance level is published (e.g. product information website), the URI for the on-line published version of the conformance claim must be included.
• The existence of a conformance claim does not imply that the W3C has reviewed the claim or assured its validity.
• A claimant may be anyone (e.g. user agent developer, journalist, other third party).
• A claimant is solely responsible for the accuracy of the claim [This does not seem quite accurate: “(including claims that include products for which they are not responsible)”] and keeping the claim up to date.
• Claimants are encouraged to claim conformance to the most recent version of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Recommendation
Jan Richards Neutral, will accept consensus of the group But I think we removed this section of ATAG2

8. Required Components of an UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim

View the Required Components of an UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim section in context of UAAG 2.0

Required Components of an UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim

1. Claimant name and affiliation.
2. Date of the claim.
3. Conformance level satisfied.
4. User agent information: The name of the user agent and sufficient additional information to specify the version (e.g. vendor name, version number (or version range), required patches or updates, human language of the user interface or documentation).
Note: If the user agent is a collection of software components (e.g. a browser and extentions or plugins), then the name and version information must be provided separately for each component, although the conformance claim will treat them as a whole. As stated above, the Claimant has sole responsibility for the conformance claim, not the developer of any of the software components.
5. Included Technologies: A list of the web content technologies (including version numbers) rendered by the user agent that the Claimant is including in the conformance claim. By including a web content technology, the Claimant is claiming that the user agent meets the requirements of UAAG 2.0 during the rendering of web content using that web content technology. Note 1: Web content technologies may be a combination of constituent web content technologies. For example, an image technology (e.g. PNG) might be listed together with a markup technology (e.g. HTML) since web content in the markup technology is used make web content in the image technology accessible (e.g. a PNG graph is made accessible using an HTML table).
6. Excluded Technologies: A list of any web content technologies produced by the user agent that the Claimant is excluding from the conformance claim. The user agent is not required to meet the requirements of UAAG 2.0 during the production of the web content technologies on this list.
7. Declarations: For each success criterion: A declaration of whether or not the success criterion has been satisfied; or A declaration that the success criterion is not applicable and a rationale for why not.
8. Platform(s): The platform (s) upon which the user agent was evaluated: For user agent platform(s) (used to evaluate web-based user agent user interfaces): provide the name and version information of the user agent(s). For platforms that are not user agents (used to evaluate non-web-based user agent user interfaces) provide: The name and version information of the platform(s) (e.g. operating system , etc.) and the name and version of the platform accessibility service(s) employed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Satisfied with the existing text 3
Suggest the following changes to the existing text 2
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group 1

Details

Responder Required Components of an UAAG 2.0 Conformance ClaimRequired Components of an UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim
Jeanne F Spellman Satisfied with the existing text #4 covers use case #2 (browser wanting to include a extension to provide full conformance)

#7 covers our use case #3 (limited functionality - media players)

IMO #5 and #6 cover our use case #4 (MS Word), but I would like confirmation from those more familiar with modern MS Word or similar products.
Greg Lowney Suggest the following changes to the existing text The headings of this and the preceding sections should use parallel construction, e.g. either both saying "Conformance Claim" or "UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim", and standardizing on either singular or plural.

Do you really want to use nested parentheses such as "(e.g. vendor name, version number (or version range)..."? Could just change it to "version number of version range".

If you're going to mention "version ranges" and "platform(s)", you might also make "human language" into "human language(s)".

Might clarify what is meant by "a collection of software components", as most user agents on Windows would include a collection of dynamic link libraries and other files, but I think the sentence is intended to to be about components that may be distributed separately, particularly if they could potentially could have different version numbers. Does it make any real difference if components are from differing manufacturers?

If we want claims to refer to specific versions of web technologies, our inline examples should follow suit, for example changing "(e.g. HTML)" to "(e.g. HTML 5.0)". Even things like "PNG" are ambiguous; would we expect claims to distinguish between the standards of 2004, 2003, and 1996?

"A list of any web content technologies produced by the user agent" should probably change "produced" to "rendered" or "used", and "producing" to "rendering" or "using". (Wording left over from ATAG?)

If a claim explicitly excludes technologies that the product renders, should it really be eligible to claim full conformance? In a worst case scenario a browser could advertise "UAAG 2.0 Level A Compliant" while in the actual form exclude HTML, or even all technologies except for JPEG. If they are, in fact, technically still compliant, it is possible they would even pass some purchasing requirements.

I believe that every "Not Applicable" answer should require a rationale for why not, such as one of the categories in my earlier proposal.

If the claimant is only claiming Level A conformance, should they really be required to test all the Level AA and AAA success criteria? Right now there is no provision for skipping those SC or answering "Not Tested". It seems a significant testing burden to put on a third party preparing a claim.

To me the phrase "For user agent platform(s)" sounds like platforms that run user agents, so I recommend saying "For platforms that are user agents". This also makes it much more clearly contrasting to the later phrase "For platforms that are no user agents". Actually, even clearer than two conditionals would be something along the lines of "The name, manufacturer, and version number(s) of each platform upon which conformance has been tested and is being claimed, and for any *platform accessibility services* used to satisfy the success criteria."
Jim Allan Satisfied with the existing text
Kimberly Patch Satisfied with the existing text (e.g. vendor name, version number or range,…
Eric Hansen Suggest the following changes to the existing text See Eric's 20Dec2012 and 22Feb2013 postings for detailed edits.

8. Platform(s): The platform(s) upon which the user agent was evaluated: For user agent platform(s) (used to evaluate web-based user agent user interfaces): provide the name and version information of the user agent(s). For platforms that are not user agents (used to evaluate non-web-based user agent user interfaces) provide: The name and version information of the platform(s) (e.g. operating system, etc.) and the name and version of the platform accessibility service(s) employed.[Eric comment: It seems to me that we need to recognize that while generally, “A user agent is any software that retrieves, renders and facilitates end user interaction with Web content” (UAAG2 glossary), in the context of a conformance claim, this definition may be refined by inclusions, exclusions, and other refinements as defined by the claimant. The recognition of this bigger picture needs, I think, to be brought out early in the document. Reference appears to be made to UAs that are (a) “web-based user agent user interfaces” and (b) “non-web-based user agent user interfaces.” When you say that the platform is being used to “evaluate a user agent user interface” do you mean that the user interface IS the user agent as defined in the claim? Or is the user interface is only part of the user agent? Can the platform ever be part of the user agent?]
9. Evidence.[Does the claimant need to describe evidence that supports the claim (e.g., automated for human reviews)?]
Jan Richards Neutral, will accept consensus of the group

9. Optional Components of an UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim

View the Conformance main header section in context of UAAG 2.0

Optional Components of an UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim

A description of how the UAAG 2.0 success criteria were met where this may not be obvious.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Satisfied with the existing text 6
Suggest the following changes to the existing text
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group

Details

Responder Optional Components of an UAAG 2.0 Conformance ClaimOptional Components of an UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim
Jeanne F Spellman Satisfied with the existing text
Greg Lowney Satisfied with the existing text
Jim Allan Satisfied with the existing text
Kimberly Patch Satisfied with the existing text
Eric Hansen Satisfied with the existing text
Jan Richards Satisfied with the existing text

10. "Progress Towards Conformance" Statement

View the Conformance main header section in context of UAAG 2.0

"Progress Towards Conformance" Statement

Developers of user agents that do not yet conform fully to a particular UAAG 2.0 conformance level are encouraged to publish a statement on progress towards conformance. The progress statement is the same as a conformance claim except an UAAG 2.0 conformance level that is being progressed towards, rather than one already satisfied, and report progress on success criteria not yet met. Authors of "Progress Towards Conformance" Statement are solely responsible for the accuracy of their statements. Developers are encouraged to provide expected timelines for meeting outstanding success criteria within the Statement.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Satisfied with the existing text 3
Suggest the following changes to the existing text 2
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group 1

Details

Responder "Progress Towards Conformance" Statement"Progress Towards Conformance" Statement
Jeanne F Spellman Satisfied with the existing text
Greg Lowney Suggest the following changes to the existing text Because all these headers are the same level, it's not clear whether a "Progress Towards Conformance" Statement is meant to be a section or appendix to a Conformance Claim, or a separate type of independent document. I would think that if a claim for Level A was published, it could easily include such a statement, along with test results for higher level SC. If it's meant to be a separate document, then the heading should certainly end with "(Optional)" like the parallel heading does.
Jim Allan Satisfied with the existing text
Kimberly Patch Satisfied with the existing text
Eric Hansen Suggest the following changes to the existing text Instead of:
"The progress statement is the same as a conformance claim except an UAAG 2.0 conformance level that is being progressed towards, rather than one already satisfied, and report progress on success criteria not yet met."

Use:
"The progress statement is the same as a conformance claim except that the UAAG 2.0 conformance level is being progressed towards, rather than already satisfied, and that progress towards satisfaction of success criteria is being reported on."
Jan Richards Neutral, will accept consensus of the group In ATAG, the vendors said they wouldn't use such a thing.

11. Any new section proposed

Since we may need new sections, this part of the survey gives you the opportunity to suggest new sections and the language for that section.

Details

Responder Any new section proposed
Jeanne F Spellman Partial Conformance
two conditions to address use cases 6 (extensions) and 8 (platform restrictions) Suggest Jan's original partial conformance proposal for extensions and platforms. (Not the example for full browsers with missing SC.)
Greg Lowney
Jim Allan
Kimberly Patch
Eric Hansen One or more section describing:
a. Whether technologies are considered part of a user agent.
b. Whether platforms are considered part of a user agent.
c. Whether hardware (which is essential for the "rendering" part of a user agent) is part of a user agent.
d. If any of a, b, and c are not part of the user agent, an explanatino of their status (e.g., technologies "relied upon") and what responsibility that vendors have to document them and how the status of those technologies impacts that applicability of success criteria that might rely on those technologies.

See Eric's 20Dec2012 and 22Feb2013 postings for additional suggestions and rationales.
Jan Richards

More details on responses

  • Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 28, February 2013 at 13:37 (UTC)
  • Greg Lowney: last responded on 7, March 2013 at 08:18 (UTC)
  • Jim Allan: last responded on 7, March 2013 at 17:30 (UTC)
  • Kimberly Patch: last responded on 7, March 2013 at 18:11 (UTC)
  • Eric Hansen: last responded on 21, March 2013 at 16:52 (UTC)
  • Jan Richards: last responded on 21, March 2013 at 16:58 (UTC)

Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.

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.