W3C

Results of Questionnaire UAWG Survey for 18 April 2013

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2013-04-12 to 2013-04-26.

6 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Components of a UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim #7
  2. Components of a UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim #8
  3. Components of a UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim #9
  4. Limited Conformance for Extensions

1. Components of a UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim #7

We seemed to have two categories of Included Technologies - video codex and image formats and language extensions like SVG and MathML. (If there is a better term than markup language extensions, please suggest it).

Proposed

Supported Web Content Technologies: If the user agent renders multiple formats (e.g. video codex, images), list the formats that meet UAAG 2.0 success criteria. Also list additional mark up language extensions (e.g. SVG, MathML) supported by the user agent.

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 2

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

Details

Responder Components of a UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim #7#7
Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal
Kimberly Patch Agree with the proposal
Greg Lowney Disagree with the proposal I'm afraid that I don't really like this draft wording. How about something like "List any formats or technologies that the user agent renders while conforming with UAAG 2.0. Examples include web markup languages such HTML, XML, CSS and SVG, image formats such as PNG, scripting languages such as JavaScript/EcmaScript, specific video codecs, proprietary document formats, etc."

Specific issues with the current wording include:

I think you mean "codecs" rather than "codex".

"(e.g. video codex, images)" might give the impression that the generic "images" would be an example response; could also change to something like "(such as specific video codecs and image file formats)".

Why limit this to "multiple formats"? I suggest having user agent list all supported conforming formats/technologies, even if it supports only one.

The term "format" might include video codecs and specific image formats, but it is also broad enough to include HTML, XML, SVG, etc., as well as various document formats, etc. We're left with two lists not clearly differentiated, and no clear reason given as to why they're separate.
Jan Richards Suggest the following changes to the proposal Why the split into two kinds of web content technologies?
Jim Allan Suggest the following changes to the proposal would just say "also list additional markup languages (e.g. SVG, MathML)supported by the user agent.
Eric Hansen already discussed

2. Components of a UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim #8

Proposed

Excluded Web Content Technologies: If the user agent renders multiple formats (e.g. video codex, images), list the formats that cannot meet UAAG 2.0 success criteria (e.g a video codex that does not support captioning). For these listed technologies, the user agent is not required to conform to UAAG 2.0.

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 2

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

Details

Responder Components of a UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim #8#8
Jeanne F Spellman Suggest the following changes to the proposal For these listed technologies, the user agent is not required to conform to UAAG 2.0. CHANGE TO: For these listed technologies, the user agent can claim that the success criteria do not apply.
Kimberly Patch Agree with the proposal
Greg Lowney Disagree with the proposal See suggested wording for question 2.

Why does this paragraph include only one of the two categories called out in the previous paragraph?
Jan Richards Suggest the following changes to the proposal The last sentence is odd...it's not that it's not required...it's that it's not part of the claim.
Jim Allan Agree with the proposal
Eric Hansen already discussed

3. Components of a UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim #9

The language was good enough in #8, that a parallel structure could be used to address the thorny problem of partial conformance for mobile devices that aren't supported by their platform. Jan suggested a different example, which is in the text below.

Proposed

Excluded Platform Technologies: If the platform (hardware or operating system) does not support a capability necessary for a given UAAG 2.0 success criterion, list the success criterion and the feature (e.g. a mobile operating system does not support platform accessibility services, therefore the user agent cannot meet success criterion 4.1.2). For these listed technologies, the user agent is not required to conform to UAAG 2.0.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 4
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group
Suggest the following changes to the proposal 2

Details

Responder Components of a UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim #9#9
Jeanne F Spellman Suggest the following changes to the proposal For these listed technologies, the user agent is not required to conform to UAAG 2.0. CHANGE TO: For these listed technologies, the user agent can claim that the success criteria do not apply.
Kimberly Patch Agree with the proposal Minor edit change to make the text and e.g. parallel:
Change
…list the success criterion and the feature…
To
…list the platform, feature and success criterion…
Greg Lowney Agree with the proposal
Jan Richards Agree with the proposal
Jim Allan Agree with the proposal
Eric Hansen Suggest the following changes to the proposal Currently (18 Apr 2013) under discussion.

I am having trouble figuring out what function this provision is playing.

My thinking is that it should be a mandatory part of the conformance claim only if it directly impacts conformance.

As I indicated on the call, I think that this text may be generating an additional meaning of platform (i.e., part of the platform that is not part of the platform, which of course makes little sense).

4. Limited Conformance for Extensions

Proposed

Limited Conformance for Extensions

This option may be used for an extension or plug-in with limited functionality that wishes to claim UAAG 2.0 conformance. An extension or plugin can claim conformance for a specific success criterion or a narrow range of success criteria as long as it also meets, or does not prevent the main user agent from meeting the success criteria related to:
* keyboard accessible (2.1)
* preference settings (2.7)
* toolbar settings (2.8)
* programmatic access(4.1).
The extension or plug-in must conform with the success criteria on documentation (3.3).

Summary

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

Details

Responder Limited Conformance for ExtensionsLimited Conformance for Extensions
Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal
Kimberly Patch Agree with the proposal minor change for clarity – add "also" to the last line
The extension or plug-in must also conform…

Greg Lowney Disagree with the proposal The proposed wording seems to say that the extension can claim conformance even if it prevents the host UA from complying with any success criteria other than the four listed.

I also don't understand why these four are the only SC that the extension needs to comply with. For example, the HeadingsMap add-in for Firefox adds a new pane displaying an outline view of the content in the main display pane. If a heading contains an image that has alt text, and HeadingsMap displays that image, doesn't it have to comply with 1.1.1 by providing the ability to display the alt text just as the main panel does?
Jan Richards Neutral, will accept consensus of the group I like the construct...I just haven't had time to check if those are the only relevant sections.
Jim Allan Suggest the following changes to the proposal "An extension or plugin can claim conformance for a specific success criterion or a narrow range of success criteria as long as it also meets, AND (strike or) does not prevent the main user agent from meeting the success criteria related to"
the extension must meet the listed SC, and not break the UA UI
Eric Hansen Disagree with the proposal I have a couple of very basic concerns with this.

1. It uses a term that I think is undefined -- "main user agent."

2. This section is unclear about its intended function. Is it intended to address the following cases?

a. The extension is not actually a user agent (e.g., if fails to do one or more of retrieve content, render content, and facilitate user interaction.
b. The extension is a user agent but fails to satisfy all level A success criteria.

Is this section for function a, b, or both a and b?

Without clarity on these basic issues I think that trying to handle this issue is largely a distraction. Our time would be better spent trying to nail down loose ends of the main conformance section.


More details on responses

  • Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 12, April 2013 at 21:54 (UTC)
  • Kimberly Patch: last responded on 12, April 2013 at 23:22 (UTC)
  • Greg Lowney: last responded on 18, April 2013 at 05:07 (UTC)
  • Jan Richards: last responded on 18, April 2013 at 16:03 (UTC)
  • Jim Allan: last responded on 18, April 2013 at 16:57 (UTC)
  • Eric Hansen: last responded on 18, April 2013 at 20:29 (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 (preferred) or by mail to sysreq.