w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire WCAG2ICT - SC Problematic for Closed Functionality: Remaining 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 2024-03-12 to 2024-03-14.
3 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- SCs Problematic for Closed: 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value
- SCs Problematic for Closed: 1.3.1 Info and Relationships
- SCs Problematic for Closed: 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context)
- SCs Problematic for Closed: 1.4.5 Images of Text
- SCs Problematic for Closed: 2.1.1 Keyboard
- SCs Problematic for Closed: Other SCs that rely on programmatic information
1. SCs Problematic for Closed: 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value
These are the remaining SC where content is being proposed for the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section. Note: Option numbers skip to preserve numbered options from previous surveys and proposals as we worked on developing what is brought to the full Task Force for review. Those skipped options are archived, but not under review for this survey.
Read the proposed SC Problematic for Closed Functionality content for 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value in the Google doc.
Indicate the readiness to incorporate this proposal into the editor's draft.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Prefer Option 0, as-is. | |
| Prefer Option 0, with edits. (Make your proposal in the Google doc.) | |
| Prefer Option 5, as-is | 3 |
| Prefer Option 5, with edits. (Make your proposal in the Google doc.) | |
| Something else. |
Details
| Responder | SCs Problematic for Closed: 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Chris Loiselle | Prefer Option 5, as-is | |
| Bruce Bailey | Prefer Option 5, as-is | |
| Phil Day | Prefer Option 5, as-is |
2. SCs Problematic for Closed: 1.3.1 Info and Relationships
Read the proposed SC Problematic for Closed Functionality content for 1.3.1 Info and Relationships labeled with "Option 1: Latest proposed content".
Indicate the readiness to incorporate this proposal into the editor's draft.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Incorporate Option 1, as-is. | 3 |
| Incorporate Option 1, with edits. (Provide the specific changes needed.) | |
| Prefer Option 0, the text currently in the editor's draft. | |
| Something else. (Provide the alternate proposal either in the survey or the issue) |
Details
| Responder | SCs Problematic for Closed: 1.3.1 Info and Relationships | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Chris Loiselle | Incorporate Option 1, as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | Incorporate Option 1, as-is. | |
| Phil Day | Incorporate Option 1, as-is. |
3. SCs Problematic for Closed: 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context)
Read the proposed SC Problematic for Closed Functionality content for 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) in the comment in Issue 274, labeled "New proposal 3". The rest of the content in the comment is provided for background and context.
Indicate the readiness to incorporate this proposal into the editor's draft.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Incorporate proposed text, as-is. | 2 |
| Incorporate proposed text, with edits. (Specify the exact changes needed.) | 1 |
| Something else. (Make your alternate proposal either in the survey or the issue.) |
Details
| Responder | SCs Problematic for Closed: 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Chris Loiselle | Incorporate proposed text, as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | Incorporate proposed text, with edits. (Specify the exact changes needed.) | > Requires text and context in a programmatically determinable form. Elsewhere, we've run into some misunderstanding from people reading this use of "requires" as a requirement (of an SC) rather than a prerequisite (for testing the SC). I suggest this sentence be: > In order to evaluate this criterion, text and context need to be in a programmatically determinable form. |
| Phil Day | Incorporate proposed text, as-is. | For clarity, I like new proposal 3, not the original proposal 1. |
4. SCs Problematic for Closed: 1.4.5 Images of Text
Read the proposals (labeled Option 9 and Option 10) for SC Problematic for Closed Functionality content for 1.4.5 Images of Text in the Google doc.
Indicate which option you prefer and its readiness to incorporate into the editor's draft.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Prefer Option 9, as-is. | |
| Prefer Option 9, with edits. (Make your proposal in the Google doc.) | 1 |
| Prefer Option 10, as-is. | 2 |
| Prefer Option 10, with edits. (Make your proposal in the Google doc.) | |
| Something else. (Make your proposal in the Google doc.) |
Details
| Responder | SCs Problematic for Closed: 1.4.5 Images of Text | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Chris Loiselle | Prefer Option 10, as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | Prefer Option 9, with edits. (Make your proposal in the Google doc.) | Similar to previous survey question, use of "requires" is potentially confusing. Current: > Requires text for high-quality modification of displayed text (e.g. high contrast, increase of font size). Proposal is in Google Doc as Option 11: > High-quality machine-readable text (and not mere images of text) is needed for assistive technology functionality to provide modification of displayed text (e.g. high contrast, increase of font size) |
| Phil Day | Prefer Option 10, as-is. |
5. SCs Problematic for Closed: 2.1.1 Keyboard
Read the proposals for SC Problematic for Closed Functionality content for 2.1.1 Keyboard in the Google doc.
Indicate which option you prefer and its readiness to incorporate into the editor's draft.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Prefer Option 0, as-is. | |
| Prefer Option 0, with edits. (Make your proposal in the Google doc.) | |
| Prefer Option 5, as-is. | 2 |
| Prefer Option 5, with edits. (Make your proposal in the Google doc.) | 1 |
| Something else. (Make your proposal in the Google doc.) |
Details
| Responder | SCs Problematic for Closed: 2.1.1 Keyboard | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Chris Loiselle | Prefer Option 5, as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | Prefer Option 5, with edits. (Make your proposal in the Google doc.) | As above, it is too easy to misread/misunderstand "requires". |
| Phil Day | Prefer Option 5, as-is. |
6. SCs Problematic for Closed: Other SCs that rely on programmatic information
There are other SCs that rely upon programmatic information that we need to ensure that the guidance is consistent in the SCs Problematic for Closed Functionality section. Please review content in the editor's draft for the following SCs: 1.1.1 Non-text Content, 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence, 3.1.1 Language of page, 3.1.2 Language of parts (also copied into this question) and compare with your preferred text from questions 1 and 2 in this survey. Indicate whether further changes are needed and provide a proposal for the changed content, if needed.
- 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence — Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. Instead, a closed functionality software equivalent would be to provide a meaningful reading sequence through auditory output or some other non-visual means that helps users correlate the output with the corresponding information displayed on the screen.
- 2.5.3 Label in Name—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form; specifically, the programmatic name contains the text of the visual label.
- 3.1.1 Language of Page—Requires language information in a programmatically determinable form intended to drive correct pronunciation. Where another mechanism achieves correct pronunciation for closed functionality, such as self-voicing, the intent of this success criterion would be met.
- 3.1.2 Language of Parts—Requires language information in a programmatically determinable form intended to drive correct pronunciation. Where another mechanism achieves correct pronunciation for closed functionality, such as self-voicing, the intent of this success criterion would be met.
- 4.1.3 Status Messages—Requires information in a programmatic determinable form. NOTE: Non-web software with closed functionality would need equivalent facilitation to provide access to status messages.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| None of the content for these SCs need changes. | |
| Changes are needed. (Specify which SCs need change and the proposed changes needed.) | 2 |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | SCs Problematic for Closed: Other SCs that rely on programmatic information | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Chris Loiselle | ||
| Bruce Bailey | Changes are needed. (Specify which SCs need change and the proposed changes needed.) | As noted in previous two questions, the use of the word "requires" is potentially confusing and could/should be avoided. |
| Phil Day | Changes are needed. (Specify which SCs need change and the proposed changes needed.) | 1.3.2 Meaningful sequence and 4.1.3 Status messages could be tweaked to better match 3.1.1, 3.1.2 Requires language information in a programmatically determinable form ... . Where another mechanism achieves .. But also happy to accept as is if others are OK with the minor differences |
More details on responses
- Chris Loiselle: last responded on 13, March 2024 at 15:58 (UTC)
- Bruce Bailey: last responded on 14, March 2024 at 12:34 (UTC)
- Phil Day: last responded on 14, March 2024 at 14:03 (UTC)
Non-responders
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
- Gregg Vanderheiden
- Shadi Abou-Zahra
- Mary Jo Mueller
- Loïc Martínez Normand
- Mike Pluke
- Sam Ogami
- Mitchell Evan
- Charles Adams
- Daniel Montalvo
- Fernanda Bonnin
- Shawn Thompson
- Olivia Hogan-Stark
- Laura Miller
- Anastasia Lanz
- Devanshu Chandra
- Bryan Trogdon
- Thorsten Katzmann
- 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