w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire Initial look at proposals
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 2022-11-14 to 2022-11-17.
8 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Initial look at proposed Background section
- Initial look at Success Criterion 1.4.12 Text Spacing
- Thoughts on notes for SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing
- Initial look at Success Criterion 1.3.4 Orientation
- Thoughts on notes for SC 1.3.4 Orientation
1. Initial look at proposed Background section
Please read the initial draft of the Background section and indicate if there's additional information you'd like to see incorporated into the draft. If you would like to see some changes, provide suggestions in the comments field below.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| This has the right amount of information. | 6 |
| I'd like to see some additional content. | 1 |
| I think this just needs some editing. | |
| This looks good as-is. | |
| I don't know or have no opinion. | 1 |
Details
| Responder | Initial look at proposed Background section | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Bailey | This has the right amount of information. | |
| Chris Loiselle | This has the right amount of information. | Reviewing https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/20 , I agree with the comments made by Bruce, Laura and Thorsten. |
| Laura Miller | I don't know or have no opinion. | |
| Devanshu Chandra | This has the right amount of information. | |
| Thorsten Katzmann | This has the right amount of information. | |
| Mike Pluke | This has the right amount of information. | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | I'd like to see some additional content. | Agree with the suggested additions/links from Bruce and editorial from Thorsten. |
| Phil Day | This has the right amount of information. |
2. Initial look at Success Criterion 1.4.12 Text Spacing
This is an initial look at the proposed content for SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing.
Read the draft of the Additional Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 1.4.12 to Non-Web Documents and Software and indicate if you agree with the direction of what has been proposed so far. Note any suggestions for improvement in the comments field.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Agree with the direction of this proposal. | 5 |
| Needs more work on the interpretation for non-web documents and software. | 2 |
| I don't know or have no opinion. | 1 |
Details
| Responder | Initial look at Success Criterion 1.4.12 Text Spacing | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Bailey | Needs more work on the interpretation for non-web documents and software. | I think I would prefer to see this SC as one for non-web documents and one for non-web software. I am not confident this SC works for software. |
| Chris Loiselle | I don't know or have no opinion. | |
| Laura Miller | Agree with the direction of this proposal. | |
| Devanshu Chandra | Agree with the direction of this proposal. | |
| Thorsten Katzmann | Agree with the direction of this proposal. | |
| Mike Pluke | Agree with the direction of this proposal. | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Needs more work on the interpretation for non-web documents and software. | I am a little worried about the rewriting of the SC to remove "content" and add clarification in the text of the SC itself. We have a <a href="https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#content-on-and-off-the-web">WCAG2ICT interpreted definition</a> While I understand and agree with the direction, perhaps this interpretation part belongs in the notes. |
| Phil Day | Agree with the direction of this proposal. |
3. Thoughts on notes for SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing
Think about this SC being applied to various non-web documents and software. Are there any notes regarding "content implemented using markup languages" when applied to non-web documents or software that should be added? If so, provide suggested text or thoughts on situations to consider, such as the one posed by Fernanda for markup used internally and not able to be modified by a user. We will have a discussion on this during our 17 November meeting.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I don't think this SC needs any notes for non-web technologies. | 1 |
| I have concerns with the SC being applied to non-web documents and software. | 4 |
| I don't know if this needs notes or have no opinion. | 3 |
Details
| Responder | Thoughts on notes for SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Bailey | I have concerns with the SC being applied to non-web documents and software. | I have concerns with the SC being applied to software. |
| Chris Loiselle | I don't know if this needs notes or have no opinion. | |
| Laura Miller | I don't know if this needs notes or have no opinion. | |
| Devanshu Chandra | I have concerns with the SC being applied to non-web documents and software. | Not sure if it should be mentioned that the author should enable scrolling on the content if the size of the box containing the content is fixed. Speaking of Android there are cases when the developers have to restrict the size of the view(with content) to avoid overlapping in that case enabling scrolling will be beneficial. In other other words is scrolling in case of text overflow acceptable under this success criteria? |
| Thorsten Katzmann | I don't think this SC needs any notes for non-web technologies. | |
| Mike Pluke | I don't know if this needs notes or have no opinion. | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | I have concerns with the SC being applied to non-web documents and software. | I think that the replacement content may instead belong in a note. This is a valid point and want it expressed in the a way consistent with the rest of the SC interpretations. |
| Phil Day | I have concerns with the SC being applied to non-web documents and software. | I wonder if additional comment on closed systems is needed - I think they are excluded due to the previous clauses, but it was not immediately apparent to me. |
4. Initial look at Success Criterion 1.3.4 Orientation
This is an initial look at the proposed content for SC 1.3.4 Orientation where Mary Jo demonstrated use of the template.
Read the draft of the Additional Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 1.3.4 to Non-Web Documents and Software and indicate if you agree with the direction of what has been proposed so far. Note any suggestions for improvement in the comments field.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Agree with the direction of this proposal. | 6 |
| Needs more work on the interpretation for non-web documents and software. | 1 |
| I don't know or have no opinion. |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Initial look at Success Criterion 1.3.4 Orientation | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Bailey | Agree with the direction of this proposal. | |
| Chris Loiselle | Agree with the direction of this proposal. | |
| Laura Miller | Agree with the direction of this proposal. | |
| Devanshu Chandra | Agree with the direction of this proposal. | |
| Thorsten Katzmann | Agree with the direction of this proposal. | |
| Mike Pluke | Agree with the direction of this proposal. | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | ||
| Phil Day | Needs more work on the interpretation for non-web documents and software. | Minor edit suggested on the note |
5. Thoughts on notes for SC 1.3.4 Orientation
Think about this SC being applied to various non-web documents and software (including closed products, native mobile apps, platform software, other types of software). Is the proposed note sufficient, or not needed? Is support for content orientation controllable by authors of non-web documents, or is this controlled by the user agent/software that renders the document? Are there situations where this SC should not be applied to non-web documents or certain classes of software - where changes of orientation doesn't make sense?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I don't think this SC needs any notes for non-web documents or non-web software. | |
| I have concerns with the SC being applied to non-web documents and software. | 2 |
| I don't know if this needs notes or have no opinion. | 5 |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Thoughts on notes for SC 1.3.4 Orientation | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Bailey | I have concerns with the SC being applied to non-web documents and software. | I suggest the note be about *content* on devices, and not just devices. Proposed: Note: Content which will only be used on devices that are fixed in place and have no sensor to detect or ability to change the orientation would be covered under the essential exception and not require software support for orientation changes. |
| Chris Loiselle | I don't know if this needs notes or have no opinion. | I think the note within https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/58 that pertains to this is sufficient. I didn't see any option via radio button in the answers for this, so placing in comments and selected the "I don't know" radio button. |
| Laura Miller | I don't know if this needs notes or have no opinion. | |
| Devanshu Chandra | I don't know if this needs notes or have no opinion. | The proposed note is sufficient. |
| Thorsten Katzmann | I don't know if this needs notes or have no opinion. | |
| Mike Pluke | I don't know if this needs notes or have no opinion. | The proposed note seems to be sufficient. |
| Mary Jo Mueller | ||
| Phil Day | I have concerns with the SC being applied to non-web documents and software. | As above - suggested a minor tweak |
More details on responses
- Bruce Bailey: last responded on 15, November 2022 at 21:51 (UTC)
- Chris Loiselle: last responded on 16, November 2022 at 14:47 (UTC)
- Laura Miller: last responded on 16, November 2022 at 17:08 (UTC)
- Devanshu Chandra: last responded on 17, November 2022 at 13:29 (UTC)
- Thorsten Katzmann: last responded on 17, November 2022 at 13:41 (UTC)
- Mike Pluke: last responded on 17, November 2022 at 14:48 (UTC)
- Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 17, November 2022 at 14:56 (UTC)
- Phil Day: last responded on 17, November 2022 at 15:18 (UTC)
Non-responders
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
- Gregg Vanderheiden
- Shadi Abou-Zahra
- Loïc Martínez Normand
- Sam Ogami
- Mitchell Evan
- Charles Adams
- Daniel Montalvo
- Fernanda Bonnin
- Shawn Thompson
- Olivia Hogan-Stark
- Anastasia Lanz
- Bryan Trogdon
- Tony Holland
- 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