W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire WCAG2ICT-Review of 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication Notes and SC problematic for closed guidance

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: maryjom@us.ibm.com

This questionnaire was open from 2024-02-09 to 2024-02-14.

5 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication - Note 3
  2. 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication - Note 4
  3. Part 1: SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - content for 3.3.8
  4. Part 2: SC problematic for closed functionality - content for 3.3.8

1. 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication - Note 3

We have the full text of the WCAG2ICT guidance and proposed notes for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) in the Google doc for 3.3.8 so you can read everything in-context.

This question is specifically about the Proposal for Note 3.

Indicate whether Note 3 is ready to incorporate into the document, or indicate any edits or new proposals in the Google doc.<.p>

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Note 3 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is. 4
Note 3 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, with the edits proposed in the Google doc. 1
This proposal isn't ready yet. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc.

Details

Responder 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication - Note 3Comments
Olivia Hogan-Stark Note 3 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.
Phil Day Note 3 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Note 3 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.
Mary Jo Mueller Note 3 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand Note 3 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, with the edits proposed in the Google doc. The current version of note 3 might imply that the developers of platform software think that SC 3.3.8 doesn't apply to platform software. An I don't think that this is the intent of the note. A suggest to edit the note to properly define it's applicability ("if the non-web software is an application").

My proposal:

NOTE 3 ***If the non-web software is an application,*** passwords used to unlock the underlying platform software are out of scope for this requirement as these are not up to a software application’s author.

2. 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication - Note 4

The last survey indicated that the other proposed notes should be moved to the SC problematic for Closed Functionality section. Therefore, we propose Note 4 contains the pointer to the "Comments on closed functionality" section consistent with other SC. The exact text is in the google doc Proposal for Note 4.

Indicate the readiness to incorporate Note 4 into the editor's draft. Suggest any edits or changes in the Google doc.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Note 4 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is. 5
Note 4 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, with the changes proposed in the Google doc.
This proposal isn't ready yet. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc.

Details

Responder 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication - Note 4Comments
Olivia Hogan-Stark Note 4 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.
Phil Day Note 4 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Note 4 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.
Mary Jo Mueller Note 4 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand Note 4 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.

3. Part 1: SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - content for 3.3.8

This question is about the Part 1 of the content proposed for SC 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) that will go into the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section. See the google doc section heading Part 1: SC Problematic for closed functionality - content for 3.3.8. We have 2 options and the only difference is whether "methods" or "mechanisms" is used in the text. Indicate your option preference and the readiness to incorporate this content into the editor's draft.

Suggest edits or changes in the Google doc.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I prefer Option 1, and it is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.
I prefer Option 1, and it can be incorporated into the draft with the edits proposed in the Google doc.
I prefer Option 2, and it is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is. 5
I prefer Option 2, and it can be incorporated into the draft with the edits proposed in the Google doc.
This proposal isn't ready yet. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc.

Details

Responder Part 1: SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - content for 3.3.8Comments
Olivia Hogan-Stark I prefer Option 2, and it is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.
Phil Day I prefer Option 2, and it is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is. I prefer mechanisms as it is consistent with the SC, but am also OK with methods.
Chris Loiselle I prefer Option 2, and it is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.
Mary Jo Mueller I prefer Option 2, and it is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand I prefer Option 2, and it is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.

4. Part 2: SC problematic for closed functionality - content for 3.3.8

This question is about the Part 2 of the content proposed for SC 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) that will go into the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section. See the google doc section heading Part 2: SC Problematic for closed functionality - content for 3.3.8. Indicate the readiness to incorporate this content into the editor's draft.

Suggest edits or changes in the Google doc.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Part 2 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is. 1
Part 2 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft with the edits proposed in the Google doc 4
This content isn't ready yet. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc.

Details

Responder Part 2: SC problematic for closed functionality - content for 3.3.8Comments
Olivia Hogan-Stark Part 2 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft with the edits proposed in the Google doc Suggestion:

"...may take legal precedence over the 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum)" instead of "...may legally supersede the 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum)"
Phil Day Part 2 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft with the edits proposed in the Google doc Minor editorial. New word inserted - shown in CAPS.
Where standards for banking or security have authentication requirements that are regulated or strictly enforced, those requirements may legally supersede the CRITERION 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum). For example, some systems with closed functionality, particularly those that handle financial transactions, have a requirement for a personal identification number (PIN) for authentication.

Chris Loiselle Part 2 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.
Mary Jo Mueller Part 2 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft with the edits proposed in the Google doc If we add "CRITERION", I suggest we add "Success Criterion" and remove "the" before it to read:

Where standards for banking or security have authentication requirements that are regulated or strictly enforced, those requirements may legally supersede Success Criterion 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum). For example, some systems with closed functionality, particularly those that handle financial transactions, have a requirement for a personal identification number (PIN) for authentication.
Loïc Martínez Normand Part 2 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft with the edits proposed in the Google doc I agree with Olivia's and Mary Jo's edit proposals: (1) to use the language "may take legal preference" and (2) to explicitly say "success criterion 3.3.8".

More details on responses

  • Olivia Hogan-Stark: last responded on 10, February 2024 at 17:34 (UTC)
  • Phil Day: last responded on 12, February 2024 at 15:26 (UTC)
  • Chris Loiselle: last responded on 13, February 2024 at 15:38 (UTC)
  • Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 13, February 2024 at 23:12 (UTC)
  • Loïc Martínez Normand: last responded on 14, February 2024 at 11:55 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Gregg Vanderheiden
  2. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  3. Bruce Bailey
  4. Mike Pluke
  5. Sam Ogami
  6. Mitchell Evan
  7. Charles Adams
  8. Daniel Montalvo
  9. Fernanda Bonnin
  10. Shawn Thompson
  11. Laura Miller
  12. Devanshu Chandra
  13. Bryan Trogdon
  14. Thorsten Katzmann
  15. Tony Holland
  16. Kent Boucher

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.