w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire WCAG2ICT-Third content review
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 2023-07-14 to 2023-07-21.
5 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Success Criterion 1.4.10 Reflow
- Success Criterion 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast
- Success Criterion 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures
- Success Criterion 4.1.3 Status Messages
- Glossary term: style property
- Glossary terms: "set of Web pages" and associated "set of" terms
- Success Criterion 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)
1. Success Criterion 1.4.10 Reflow
Review the Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 1.4.10 to Non-Web Documents and Software, the definition Guidance When Applying "css pixel" to Non-Web Documents and Software, as well as the bullet for 1.4.10 Reflow in the Success Criteria Problematic for Closed Functionality section.
WCAG 2.1 criteria and understanding links for SC 1.4.10 Reflow:
Indicate if you agree with the content of the section. Note any suggested edits for improvement and/or reasoning in the comments field.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | 4 |
| The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable with the following changes. | 1 |
| I have concerns with the proposed WCAG2ICT guidance. |
Details
| Responder | Success Criterion 1.4.10 Reflow | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Todd Libby | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | |
| Gregg Vanderheiden | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | |
| Detlev Fischer | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable with the following changes. | I don't have specific change proposals, I'm just raising a few points for consideration. I was wondering whether all the web-specific sections following the notes are useful fo people looking at if and how to apply 1.4.10 Reflow to non-web documents and software. I was also wondering whether it would make sense to mention scenarios where reflow can and should happen, such as apps that can be viewed in parts of a given display (split screen), or viewed after changes of display orientation. Auditors may want to gather whether, say, a lack of reflow when turning a display from portrait to landscape, or adding a split screen view reducing viewport width, or increasing text size of the underlying platform software (where available) could be considered a fail of 1.4.10. i don't have clear answers for this, I just guess these will frequently be questions coming up in the practical application of 1.4.10 to software / mobile apps. The phrasing of the note "If the content technology and platform software do not support reflow, it may not be possible for non-web software to meet this success criterion" leaves it open (IMO) whether this means a "FAIL" or a "not applicable". In the likely latter case, the text should probably be phrased a bit more like the pre-conditions in Annex C of the EN 3012 549, which make it clear that if the pre-condition is not met, the requirement / success criterion does not apply. The first note of "7.3.9.1 Guidance When Applying “CSS pixel” to Non-Web Documents and Software" has the sentence: "Therefore, use platform-defined density-independent pixel measurements which approximate the CSS reference pixel." It might be more useful for practioners if it was possible to say if this approximation is close enough to substitute measurements in CSS px by one of the platform-defined density-independent pixel units, or, if not, point to a source that helps in converting measurements - especially if there are differences between the three platform-defined units mentioned. |
| Bruce Bailey | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | |
| Laura Carlson | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. |
2. Success Criterion 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast
Review the Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 1.4.11 to Non-Web Documents and Software as well as the bullet for 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast in the Success Criteria Problematic for Closed Functionality section.
WCAG 2.1 criteria, understanding, and definition links:
Indicate if you agree with the content of the section. Note any suggested edits for improvement and/or reasoning in the comments field.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | 5 |
| The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable with the following changes. | |
| I have concerns with the proposed WCAG2ICT guidance. |
Details
| Responder | Success Criterion 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Todd Libby | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | |
| Gregg Vanderheiden | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | |
| Detlev Fischer | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | I can't see anything that would not apply to Software the same way as to web. Again, if the entire text of the WCAG SC seems to be included, it would make sense to check if there are any web-specific things that make no sense for software (there are likely some that may not apply to documents). If the approach is to include WCAG SC Understanding texts wholesale, I wonder if this happened for the convenience of this survey or reflects the intended format of the final new WCAG2ICT note. In the latter case, it may be better (and more maintainable) to just link to the Understanding docs rather than reproducing them? |
| Bruce Bailey | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | |
| Laura Carlson | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. |
3. Success Criterion 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures
Review the Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 2.5.1 to Non-Web Documents and Software.
WCAG 2.1 criteria and understanding links for SC 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures:
Indicate if you agree with the content of the section. Note any suggested edits for improvement and/or reasoning in the comments field.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | 4 |
| The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable with the following changes. | 1 |
| I have concerns with the proposed WCAG2ICT guidance. |
Details
| Responder | Success Criterion 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Todd Libby | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | |
| Gregg Vanderheiden | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | |
| Detlev Fischer | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable with the following changes. | I can't see anything that would not apply to Software the same way as to web. As to documents, there is a note "Multipoint and path-based gestures are less common in documents. An example where a document author could add such gestures is an interactive prototype document created in a software design tool." If I understand this example correctly, this would likely be a gesture implemented by the design tool and not the document being designed? So I think any examples should relate to documents out there for download etc. Are there any one could reference? If documents can include interactive content, I can see no reason why the SC would not apply in the same way as to web content or software. Same thought about including the entire SC understanding text. |
| Bruce Bailey | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | |
| Laura Carlson | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. |
4. Success Criterion 4.1.3 Status Messages
Review the Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 4.1.3 to Non-Web Documents and Software as well as the bullet for 4.1.3 Status Messages in the Success Criteria Problematic for Closed Functionality section.
WCAG 2.1 criteria and understanding links:
Indicate if you agree with the content of the section. Note any suggested edits for improvement and/or reasoning in the comments field.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | 4 |
| The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable with the following changes. | 1 |
| I have concerns with the proposed WCAG2ICT guidance. |
Details
| Responder | Success Criterion 4.1.3 Status Messages | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Todd Libby | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | |
| Gregg Vanderheiden | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | There is a typo in the Success Criteria Problematic for Closed Functionality section. (I sent a note to MJM) |
| Detlev Fischer | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable with the following changes. | Same thought about including the SC understanding text. The text here has links ("Status Message Examples" and "Examples of Changes That Are Not Status Messages") pointing to sections of the WCAG Understanding that are missing here and therefore don't work, so if the text remains it needs to be updated. |
| Bruce Bailey | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | |
| Laura Carlson | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. |
5. Glossary term: style property
Review the Guidance When Applying "style property" to Non-Web Documents and Software.
This term was used, but missed when adding SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing.
Indicate if you agree with the content of the section. Note any suggested edits for improvement and/or reasoning in the comments field.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | 5 |
| The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable with the following changes. | |
| I have concerns with the proposed WCAG2ICT guidance. |
Details
| Responder | Glossary term: style property | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Todd Libby | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | |
| Gregg Vanderheiden | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | the links provided above never |
| Detlev Fischer | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | |
| Laura Carlson | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. |
6. Glossary terms: "set of Web pages" and associated "set of" terms
Since the 2013 WCAG2ICT, there were some changes made to the "set of Web pages" definition. We also modified the related Key Terms for WCAG2ICT to better align with the WCAG definition.
Review the following sections:
- Guidance When Applying "set of Web pages" to Non-Web Documents and Software
- Key Term "set of documents"
- Key Term "set of software programs"
Indicate if you agree with the content in these sections. Note any suggested edits for improvement and/or reasoning in the comments field.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | 2 |
| The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable with the following changes. | 2 |
| I have concerns with the proposed WCAG2ICT guidance. |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Glossary terms: "set of Web pages" and associated "set of" terms | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Todd Libby | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | |
| Gregg Vanderheiden | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable with the following changes. | Slight change in the note since "such sets occur frequently for web pages" doesnt grok since "such sets" refers to "set of software programs" making the sentence read "Although [sets of software programs] occur frequently for web pages" Suggested edit: NOTE: Although "sets of web pages" occurs frequently, "sets of software programs" appear to be extremely rare. |
| Detlev Fischer | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable with the following changes. | +1 to Gregg's edit (or something similar). |
| Laura Carlson |
7. Success Criterion 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)
Review the Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 2.5.8 to Non-Web Documents and Software and the definition Guidance When Applying "target" to Non-Web Documents and Software.
WCAG 2.2 criteria and understanding links for 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum):
- Success Criterion 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)
- Intent section of Understanding 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)
Indicate if you agree with the content of the section. Note any suggested edits for improvement and/or reasoning in the comments field.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | 4 |
| The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable with the following changes. | 1 |
| I have concerns with the proposed WCAG2ICT guidance. |
Details
| Responder | Success Criterion 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Todd Libby | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | |
| Gregg Vanderheiden | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | |
| Detlev Fischer | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable with the following changes. | I believe currently there is no reference to section 7.3.9.1 Guidance When Applying “CSS pixel” which may be useful to include in all cases where a measurement of size is required. See also my notes on 'Guidance When Applying "css pixel" to Non-Web Documents and Software' in the survey question above on 1.4.10 Reflow. |
| Bruce Bailey | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. | |
| Laura Carlson | The proposed WCAG2ICT guidance is acceptable as-is. |
More details on responses
- Todd Libby: last responded on 20, July 2023 at 00:42 (UTC)
- Gregg Vanderheiden: last responded on 20, July 2023 at 05:17 (UTC)
- Detlev Fischer: last responded on 20, July 2023 at 11:36 (UTC)
- Bruce Bailey: last responded on 21, July 2023 at 16:25 (UTC)
- Laura Carlson: last responded on 21, July 2023 at 18:23 (UTC)
Non-responders
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
- Shadi Abou-Zahra
- Mary Jo Mueller
- Loïc Martínez Normand
- Mike Pluke
- Chris Loiselle
- 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