W3C

Results of Questionnaire UAWG Survey for 3 October 2013

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2013-10-02 to 2013-10-25.

5 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. 3.3.2 Proposal - definition of Documentation
  2. 3.3.2 Proposal - Intent
  3. 3.3.2 Proposal - success criterion
  4. 1.4 Intent and examples
  5. 1.4.1 changes
  6. 1.4.2 - new
  7. 1.4.3 - new
  8. 1.4.4 - new
  9. 1.4.5 - new
  10. 1.4.6 - new
  11. 1.8.7 - change
  12. 1.8.7 and 1.8.9 IER changes
  13. New 2.10.x - Animation in the user agent user interface

1. 3.3.2 Proposal - definition of Documentation

from Jan' proposal:

Documentation: Any information that supports the use of a user agent. This information may be provided electronically or otherwise and includes help, manuals, installation instructions, tutorials, etc. Note: The level of technical detail in documentation for users should match the technical level of the feature. For example, user documentation for a browser's zoom function should not refer users to the source code repository for that browser.

EXISTING:
Documentation: Any information that supports the use of a user agent. This information may be found, for example, in manuals, installation instructions, the help system, and tutorials. Documentation may be distributed (e.g. as files installed as part of the installation; some parts may be delivered on CD-ROM, others on the web). (http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/ED-UAAG20-20130925/#def-documentation)

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 1

Details

Responder 3.3.2 Proposal - definition of Documentation3.3.2 definition of Documentation
Jan Richards Agree with the proposal
Kimberly Patch Agree with the proposal
Jim Allan Agree with the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Suggest the following changes to the proposal "documentation for users should match the technical level of the feature." -- suggest that it be
"documentation for users should match the technical level of what the user wants to accomplish".

Greg Lowney Neutral, will accept consensus of the group I'm a little uncomfortable of not even addressing the question of whether or not the term covers materials not included with the product.

2. 3.3.2 Proposal - Intent

from Jan' proposal:

PROPOSAL (adapted from ATAG2):
Intent: Some users with disabilities will need help in determining how to use the accessibility features that user agents provide. There are four possibilities:
(a) This information can be provided in the documentation of the user agent (e.g. help system, context sensitive help, etc.);
(b) The user interface element is self-explanatory (e.g. a zoom % drop-down menu); (c) The accessibility feature is actually a service of the platform (e.g. high contrast mode), which therefore has the responsibility to document the feature; or
(d) The feature is not used directly by users (e.g., passing information to a platform accessibility service). In this case, user documentation does not make sense, although developer documentation (e.g. how accessibility APIs are used, the user agent's own plug-in API) would still be recommended.

Existing: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/UAAG20/#sc_332

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 4
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group 1
Suggest the following changes to the proposal

Details

Responder 3.3.2 Proposal - Intent3.3.2 Intent
Jan Richards Agree with the proposal
Kimberly Patch Agree with the proposal
Jim Allan Agree with the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal
Greg Lowney Neutral, will accept consensus of the group Editorial: inconsistent tense ("can" vs. "is").

I'm still concerned about whether almost anything can be claimed to be self-documenting.

In the final case why would developer docs not be required?

I would change "would not make sense" to "is not required", because we would not want to discourage products from listing or explaining accessibility features and benefits, even if the user doesn't have to explicitly invoke them.

Editorial: the actual phrases used in the SC differ from those in the intent.

3. 3.3.2 Proposal - success criterion

From Jim's proposal:

Proposal: using ATAG as a model, rewrote for UAAG. The ATAG definition as based on feedback from vendors. It is more comprehensive. I believe the IER is ok even with the rewording.

3.3.2 Describe Accessibility Features: For each user agent feature that is used to meet UAAG 2.0, at least one of the following is true: (Level A)
(a) Described in the Documentation: Use of the feature is explained in the user agents's documentation; or
(b) Described in the Interface: Use of the feature is explained in the user agent user interface; or
(c) Platform Service: The feature is a service provided by an underlying platform; or
(d) Not Used by Users: The feature is not used directly by users (e.g., passing information to a platform accessibility service).

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 5
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group
Suggest the following changes to the proposal

Details

Responder 3.3.2 Proposal - success criterion3.3.2 success criterion
Jan Richards Agree with the proposal
Kimberly Patch Agree with the proposal
Jim Allan Agree with the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal
Greg Lowney Agree with the proposal

4. 1.4 Intent and examples

see Implementing UAAG 2.0 Guideline 1.4 to see how the Intent and Examples look at the guideline level.

Jeanne proposed that this examples and intent be moved to the appropriate success criteria to make it consistent with the rest of Implementing UAAG 2.0.

PROPOSED - move the 1.4 Text Customization Intent and examples to the appropriate success criteria keeping the consistency with other guidelines in Implementing UAAG 2.0.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 5
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group
Suggest the following changes to the proposal

Details

Responder 1.4 Intent and examples1.4 Intent and Examples
Jan Richards Agree with the proposal
Kimberly Patch Agree with the proposal
Jim Allan Agree with the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal
Greg Lowney Agree with the proposal

5. 1.4.1 changes

See 1.4.1 changes in 25 September 2013 UAAG 2.0 Editors Draft.

PROPOSED:
1.4.1 Configure text globally: The user can globally set all of the following characteristics of visually rendered text content: (Level A)
* Text scale (the general size of text)
* Text color and background color, choosing from all platform color options
* Font family, choosing from all platform fonts

Summary

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

Details

Responder 1.4.1 changes1.4.1
Jan Richards Suggest the following changes to the proposal New handle: Configure Global Text Scale, Color, Font
Kimberly Patch Suggest the following changes to the proposal Change stem to user agent point of view, initial caps and differentiate from 1.4.3:
NEW STEM: Allow Text Scale, Color and Font to be Configured Globally
Jim Allan Agree with the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal
Greg Lowney Agree with the proposal

6. 1.4.2 - new

See new 1.4.2 in 25 September 2013 UAAG 2.0 Editors Draft.

PROPOSED:
1.4.2 Configure text elements: The user can set all of the following characteristics of visually rendered text content for headings, main text, and other elements:(Level AA)
* Text scale (the general size of text)
* Text color and background color, choosing from all platform color options
* Font family, choosing from all platform fonts

Summary

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

Details

Responder 1.4.2 - new1.4.2
Jan Richards Suggest the following changes to the proposal "Other elements" is not testable
Kimberly Patch Suggest the following changes to the proposal Change stem to user agent point of view, initial caps and differentiate from 1.4.5:
NEW STEM: Allow Text Scale, Color and Font to be Configured
Further editorial suggestions:
ORIGINAL:
The user can set all of the following characteristics of visually rendered text content for headings, main text, and other elements:
SUGGESTED CHANGE:
The user can set all of the following characteristics of visually rendered text content for text elements including main text and headings:

SPACING issue – Needs space between text: and (
Jim Allan Agree with the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Suggest the following changes to the proposal other elements is not testable - make a list of the minimum that must be done:
"The user can set all of the following characteristics of visually rendered text content for at least headings, main text, table headings, and input fields. "
Greg Lowney Disagree with the proposal Need to clarify that it means element types, not individual elements.

7. 1.4.3 - new

See new 1.4.3 in 25 September 2013 UAAG 2.0 Editors Draft.

PROPOSED:
1.4.3 Configure text globally: The user can globally set all of the following characteristics of visually rendered blocks of text:(Level AA)
Line spacing of at least 1.0, 1.3, 1.5, and 2.0
Character spacing of at least 0.01, 0.03, 0.06, 0.09
Word spacing of at least 0.01, 0.03, 0.06, 0.09
Text style (underline, italic, bold)
Justification - undo full justification

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal
Disagree with the proposal
Neutral, will accept consensus of the group
Suggest the following changes to the proposal 5

Details

Responder 1.4.3 - new1.4.3
Jan Richards Suggest the following changes to the proposal New handle: Configure Global Text Spacing, Style, Justification
remove: Italic
Kimberly Patch Suggest the following changes to the proposal Change stem to user agent point of view, initial caps, and differentiate it from 1.4 1.1:
NEW STEM: Allow Text Spacing and Style to be Configured Globally
Further editorial suggestions:
ORIGINAL:
… Character spacing of at least 0.01, 0.03, 0.06, 0.09
Word spacing of at least 0.01, 0.03, 0.06, 0.09

Justification - undo full justification
SUGGESTED CHANGES:
…Character spacing of at least 0.01, 0.03, 0.06, and 0.09
Word spacing of at least 0.01, 0.03, 0.06, and 0.09

Justification (left, right, full)

SPACING issue – Needs space between text: and (


Jim Allan Suggest the following changes to the proposal seems a unit (em perhaps) is in order, otherwise the numbers are meaningless.
line spacing though a generic term does not exist in CSS. suggest changing to 'line-height' which is a valid CSS attribute.
character spacing should be 'letter-spacing'
word spacing should be 'word-spacing'
Jeanne F Spellman Suggest the following changes to the proposal needs unit of measure
Greg Lowney Suggest the following changes to the proposal See my comments in the transcript from 2013-10-03.

8. 1.4.4 - new

See new 1.4.4 in 25 September 2013 UAAG 2.0 Editors Draft.

PROPOSED:
1.4.4 Printing configured and reflowed text: The user can print blocks of text that is configured according to the success criteria of guideline 1.4 and/or reflowed according to success criteria 1.8.x, including text that is zoomed. (Level AA)

Summary

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

Details

Responder 1.4.4 - new1.4.2
Jan Richards Disagree with the proposal I don't really like the recently proposed text because it fails to mention other rendering changes such as highlighting. Greg proposed some more expansive printing text here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2010OctDec/0089.html
Kimberly Patch Suggest the following changes to the proposal Change stem to user agent point of view, initial caps:
NEW STEM: Allow Printing of Configured Text

Also here's a proposed rewording of the success criteria:

The user can print blocks of text configured according to success criteria XX. The user can print blocks of text reflowed according to success criteria 1.8.x.

And something to talk about:
"XX" needs to be a list of specific success criteria – I'm assuming this would not include the AAA success criteria because this is a AA success criteria.
Jim Allan Suggest the following changes to the proposal make this a AAA. I see implementation issues. don't know of any current UA that does this.
Jeanne F Spellman Disagree with the proposal I think we tried to do this and failed. I doubt we could find any implementations even at AAA level
Greg Lowney Suggest the following changes to the proposal As per Jan's comment I support a printing requirement, and think that my earlier proposed wording would work if we make it explicit that it should be printed as rendered for the screen. We could explicitly say that user agents are encouraged to also provide the ability to print using stylings appropriate for printed content, such as any print style sheets provided by the author or user. In addition we could consider the ability to print only a portion of the document, such as a selected range or range of pages, because if these are lacking printing won't be practical for many documents.

1.4.4 Printing: The user can print any rendered content to their choice of available printer devices. (Level AA)
Applicability Note: Printing is not required for non-visual or time-based content, such as audio and video.
or 1.4.4 Printing: The user can print any rendered visual, non-time-based content to their choice of available printer devices. (Level AA)
Applicability Note: The user must be able to print content as it is rendered for their video output, reflecting user scaling, highlighting, and other modifications, but reflowed for the print margins.

Intent: The ability to print content is important for users who have difficulty reading or interacting with Web content directly in the user agent due to software, hardware, or ergonomic issues. Printing to virtual printer devices can also be a necessary step in converting the content to another electronic format that the user finds more accessible. It is also important that the user be able to print content with modifications they have applied, such as scaling or highlighting, or else they may find the printed version unusuable. At the same time, they need to be able to have content reflowed to fit the width of the page, or else content may be cut off.

User agents are strongly encouraged to let the user print a portion of the document, such as a selection or specified range of pages, because otherwise printing won’t be a practical option for long documents.

Examples:
* Ralph finds it moderately difficult to use the computer, so while he can operate the Web browser, he finds long documents much easier to read when he prints them out so that he can hold them in a more comfortable position. When a web page has small text, he enlarges it on the screen using his web browser’s Zoom command, which also makes the printed text large enough for him to read.

9. 1.4.5 - new

See new 1.4.5 in 25 September 2013 UAAG 2.0 Editors Draft.

PROPOSED:
1.4.5 Configure text elements: The user can set all of the following characteristics of visually rendered text content for headings, main text, and other elements: (Level AAA)
Text style (underline, italic, bold)
Margins (for example, space above headings, indentation of lists)
Borders

Summary

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

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

Details

Responder 1.4.5 - new1.4.5
Jan Richards Suggest the following changes to the proposal New handle: Configure Text Style, Margins, Borders
rem: Italic
Kimberly Patch Suggest the following changes to the proposal Change stem to user agent point of view, initial caps and differentiate from 1.4.2:
NEW STEM: Allow Text Style and Margins to be Configured
Editorial changes:
ORIGINAL:
The user can set all of the following characteristics of visually rendered text content for headings, main text, and other elements:
SUGGESTED CHANGE:
The user can set all of the following characteristics of visually rendered text content for text elements including main text and headings:
ORIGINAL:
Margins (for example, space above headings, indentation of lists)
SUGGESTED CHANGE:
Margins (e.g. space above headings, indentation of lists)
Jim Allan Agree with the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Same objection as 1.4.2 "other elements"
Greg Lowney Suggest the following changes to the proposal Agree we should use the same wording regarding "other elements".

10. 1.4.6 - new

See new 1.4.6 in 25 September 2013 UAAG 2.0 Editors Draft.

PROPOSED:
1.4.6 Configure text globally: The user can globally set all of the following characteristics of visually rendered blocks of text:(Level AAA)
Line spacing between 0.7 and 3.0, at increments of 0.10.
Justification (setting left, right, or full)
Capitalization (undoing all caps)
Hyphenation
Margins (to clear clutter away from blocks of text)
Borders

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 1
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 1.4.6 - new1.4.6
Jan Richards Suggest the following changes to the proposal
Kimberly Patch Suggest the following changes to the proposal Change stem to user agent point of view, initial caps and differentiate from 1.4.2:
NEW STEM: Allow Text Fine Spacing, Capitalization and Hyphenation to be Configured Globally
ORIGINAL:
…Justification (setting left, right, or full)
Capitalization (undoing all caps)

Margins (to clear clutter away from blocks of text)
Borders
SUGGESTED CHANGE:
…Justification (left, right, or full)
Capitalization

Margins
Borders

I think the parenthetical explanations for capitalization and margins belong in the intent, not in the SC.
Jim Allan Disagree with the proposal line spacing - this needs units - suggest em

Jeanne F Spellman Agree with the proposal
Greg Lowney

11. 1.8.7 - change

See changes 1.8.7 in 25 September 2013 UAAG 2.0 Editors Draft.

PROPOSED:
1.8.7. Reflow Text:The user can specify that text content in a graphical viewport reflows so that blocks of text fit within the width of the viewport in a single column.(Level A)

Note 1: [N<] Reflow applies to rescaled or zoomed text. [>N]

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

Details

Responder 1.8.7 - change1.8.7
Jan Richards Agree with the proposal
Kimberly Patch Agree with the proposal Change stem to user agent point of view:
Allow text reflow
Editorial changes:
ORIGINAL:
The user can specify that text content in a graphical viewport reflows so that blocks of text fit within the width of the viewport in a single column.
SUGGESTED CHANGE:
The user can reflow text content in a graphical viewport so that blocks of text fit within the width of the viewport in a single column.
Jim Allan Agree with the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Disagree with the proposal The previously updated 1.8.7 to reduce horizontal scrolling meets the need more broadly, because it includes viewports deeper than the top-level. I'm not sure that the single column reflow could be accomplished at anything lower than the top level viewport.
Greg Lowney Suggest the following changes to the proposal 1. I don’t see the benefit of seeming to limit this to "blocks" of text.

2. Do we have a consistent style with a preference between "can have" vs. "can specify that"?

3. Do we want this to be a global option, or something applied to a specific viewport, or leave it up to the developer? Right now the wording ("a graphical viewport") is ambiguous.

4. Editorial: How about "the text forms a single column that fits within the width of the viewport"?

12. 1.8.7 and 1.8.9 IER changes

See changes to IER for 1.8.7 and 1.8.9 in 25 September 2013 Implementing UAAG 2.0 Editors Draft.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the proposal 2
Disagree with the proposal
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 1.8.7 and 1.8.9 IER changes1.8.7 and 1.8.9 IER changesd
Jan Richards Agree with the proposal
Kimberly Patch Suggest the following changes to the proposal ORIGINAL
Maggie has cognitive issues that make it difficult for her to reorient when the computer screen changes. Finding and activating scrollbars, then finding the next words in the sentence requires more effort and causes Maggie to lose her orientation which degrades her reading flow and comprehension…

SUGGESTED CHANGES
Suggested edit to last sentence: Maggie has cognitive issues that make it difficult for her to reorient when the computer screen changes. Finding and activating scrollbars, then finding the next words in the sentence requires extra effort and causes Maggie to lose her orientation, which degrades her reading flow and comprehension…

ORIGINAL
Tanya has low vision and needs large text. On web pages with only decorative graphics, she increases the text size and leaves the graphics small. However, she is using a web application with important graphics. Since she wants both the graphics and the text to be bigger, she uses the zoom page feature.

SUGGESTED CHANGES
Tanya has low vision and needs large text. On web pages where graphics are strictly decorative, she increases the text size and leaves the graphics small. If she is using a web application with important graphics, however, both the graphics and the text need to be bigger, so she uses the zoom page feature.
Jim Allan Agree with the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman
Greg Lowney Suggest the following changes to the proposal All editorial suggestions for the Intent paragraph:

1. References to "image" are confusing; are they talking about images, or the presentation of all the content?

2. "without scrolling" should be "without horizontal scrolling".

3. The added clause is valuable but confusing where it is. I suggest changing it to a separate sentence, such as "Other users with cognitive or learning disabilities may improve their ability to read the text by making the viewport narrower, and thus shortening the line lengths."

13. New 2.10.x - Animation in the user agent user interface

See Greg's email.

PROPOSED:
2.10.x Allow avoiding animation: The user can disable any animations that are part of the user agent user interface. All information is available through means that do not require the use of animation. (Level A)

Intent of Success Criterion 2.10.x:

Users with sensory, attentional, cognitive, or vestibular impairments can find that animations cause distraction, disorientation, nausea, dizziness or vertigo. If the user agent presents any such movies or animated effects, it should provide a global setting that allows the user to disable them, and doing so should not cause the loss of functionality or information.

Examples of Success Criteria 2.10.x:

* Allesandro finds it impossible to ignore visual changes. Unnecessary animations make it very difficult for him to read or interact with other content on the screen. When he's reading an article on a newspaper website and finds an animated icon in the browser's notification area distracting, he goes to the browser's settings dialog and chooses the option to disable browser animations.
* Rachel has a vestibular disorder that causes her to experience dizziness when she sees certain types of videos or animations. Her web browser smoothly scrolls the window every time she presses the pages up or down, and this simulated motion can make her dizzy or nauseous, so she adjusts the browser's user preference options to turn off smooth scrolling, so that the browser effectively redraws the contents of the window each time.

References: * Guideline 2.11 - Provide control of content that may reduce accessibility
* "Why iOS 7 is making some users sick", http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/27/ios-7-motion-sickness-nausea.
* Vestibular Disorders Association, https://vestibular.org.

Add to Examples of Success Criteria 2.11.3 (Execution Toggle):

* Rachel has a vestibular disorder that causes her to experience dizziness when she sees certain types of videos or animations. She wants to order theatre tickets, but unfortunately the web site displays an animated background that every few seconds slides out the background image and slides another into its place, and this animation makes Rachel severely uncomfortable. Therefore she clicks a button on the browser's toolbar to temporarily disable scripts on this page, which causes the animation to stop.

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 1

Details

Responder New 2.10.x - Animation in the user agent user interface2.10.x
Jan Richards Neutral, will accept consensus of the group Does this need to be A?
Kimberly Patch Agree with the proposal
Jim Allan Agree with the proposal
Jeanne F Spellman Suggest the following changes to the proposal Remove the resource link to the newsletter article - we typically don't do that because we can't ensure longevity of the article and the free access to it in the future.
Greg Lowney Agree with the proposal

More details on responses

  • Jan Richards: last responded on 2, October 2013 at 19:48 (UTC)
  • Kimberly Patch: last responded on 2, October 2013 at 20:22 (UTC)
  • Jim Allan: last responded on 3, October 2013 at 14:32 (UTC)
  • Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 3, October 2013 at 18:23 (UTC)
  • Greg Lowney: last responded on 10, October 2013 at 06:38 (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.