W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire WCAG2ICT-SC 3.2.6 Consistent Help draft 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 2023-12-01 to 2023-12-06.

7 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Review of proposed content for 3.2.6 Consistent Help
  2. More guidance notes needed?
  3. 3.2.6 Consistent Help relevance to SC problematic for Closed Functionality

1. Review of proposed content for 3.2.6 Consistent Help

Review the draft proposal for Applying SC 3.2.6 Consistent Help to Non-Web Documents and Software. Indicate whether this proposal is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft and note any desired changes.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
The proposed content is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is. 1
The proposed content is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, with the following changes. 6
The proposal isn't ready yet.

Details

Responder Review of proposed content for 3.2.6 Consistent HelpComments
Phil Day The proposed content is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, with the following changes. "[non-web document content]" to should be "[non-web document] content" to be consistent with substitutions, and with "[software program] content"

However, I do agree with Mary Jo that this could be further simplified to just use "content" and make it slightly less wordy.

My thanks to Olivia for working through this difficult SC.
Olivia Hogan-Stark The proposed content is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, with the following changes. Thank you for your feedback, Mary Jo!

Leaning towards your suggestion of changing "[page] variation" to "content layout variation." Would make the sections less cluttered with "non-web documents"'s and "software programs"'s. Would be fine keeping as is, however.

+ 1 to updating "[page] content" to be "content."

Note to update paragraph beneath "Applying SC 3.2.6 Consistent Help to Non-web Documents and Software" section heading with any word changes.
Sam Ogami The proposed content is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, with the following changes. +1 MJ Changes
Mary Jo Mueller The proposed content is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, with the following changes. With the edits I suggested to simplify "content" and use "content layout variation" as the substitutions. Thanks to Olivia for this one - not easy, as there was a lot of web-based language in this SC.
Bruce Bailey The proposed content is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.
Mitchell Evan The proposed content is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, with the following changes. +1 to Mary Jo's changes.

"Help mechanisms may be provided directly on the [page], or may be provided via a direct link to a different [page] containing the information." Might it also be logical to allow web pages, non-web documents, and non-web software all to link to each other? If not, I can live with it.

The meaning of the word "serialized" is adequately clear in context of "when the page is serialized", but it doesn't work so well in context of "when the [document or software program] is serialized". It sounds like a rather different technical concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serialization ... Can we say "when the content is serialized"? If not, I can live with it.
Mike Pluke The proposed content is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, with the following changes. +1 to Mary Jo / Olivia's simplifications.

2. More guidance notes needed?

Are there any additional notes needed in the main guidance for SC 3.2.6 Consistent Help? If you think there is a need, please propose the text.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No additional notes needed. 6
Additional notes are needed. Provide your proposal or thoughts on what is needed. 1

Details

Responder More guidance notes needed? Comments
Phil Day No additional notes needed.
Olivia Hogan-Stark No additional notes needed.
Sam Ogami No additional notes needed.
Mary Jo Mueller No additional notes needed.
Bruce Bailey No additional notes needed.
Mitchell Evan Additional notes are needed. Provide your proposal or thoughts on what is needed. If not already covered in word substitution, can we add a note saying it's okay for documents and software to link to web pages for help content, or even all link to each other? (If not, I can live with it.)
Mike Pluke No additional notes needed.

3. 3.2.6 Consistent Help relevance to SC problematic for Closed Functionality

Is a bullet needed in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section for 3.2.6 Consistent Help? If so, please suggest the text.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
No bullet needed. Applies, as written, to closed functionality software. 7
Bullet needed in the SC problematic for closed functionality section. Explain.

Details

Responder 3.2.6 Consistent Help relevance to SC problematic for Closed FunctionalityComments
Phil Day No bullet needed. Applies, as written, to closed functionality software. I do not think we need a bullet added. My rationale is as follows:

This is problematic for some systems with Closed Functionality that cannot include help directly in the system due to constraints. However, I believe that these systems would already be exempt, as the SC only applies to systems that contain any of these help mechanisms.
Olivia Hogan-Stark No bullet needed. Applies, as written, to closed functionality software.
Sam Ogami No bullet needed. Applies, as written, to closed functionality software.
Mary Jo Mueller No bullet needed. Applies, as written, to closed functionality software. Agree with Phil's observation. If no help mechanism of the types listed are available, then this is N/A, and the software/document automatically meets the SC.
Bruce Bailey No bullet needed. Applies, as written, to closed functionality software.
Mitchell Evan No bullet needed. Applies, as written, to closed functionality software.
Mike Pluke No bullet needed. Applies, as written, to closed functionality software.

More details on responses

  • Phil Day: last responded on 5, December 2023 at 09:48 (UTC)
  • Olivia Hogan-Stark: last responded on 5, December 2023 at 15:35 (UTC)
  • Sam Ogami: last responded on 5, December 2023 at 21:44 (UTC)
  • Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 6, December 2023 at 20:22 (UTC)
  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 6, December 2023 at 21:16 (UTC)
  • Mitchell Evan: last responded on 6, December 2023 at 22:14 (UTC)
  • Mike Pluke: last responded on 6, December 2023 at 23:01 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Gregg Vanderheiden
  2. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  3. Loïc Martínez Normand
  4. Chris Loiselle
  5. Charles Adams
  6. Daniel Montalvo
  7. Fernanda Bonnin
  8. Shawn Thompson
  9. Laura Miller
  10. Anastasia Lanz
  11. Devanshu Chandra
  12. Bryan Trogdon
  13. Thorsten Katzmann
  14. Tony Holland
  15. 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.