W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire WCAG2ICT - Review draft updates due to open issues #2

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 2023-10-26 to 2023-11-01.

8 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Proposed update to the Closed Functionality section

1. Proposed update to the Closed Functionality section

Read Closed Functionality Products section. Indicate if the suggested text update is sufficient to address Issue 217 - Stale closed functionality examples and ready to merge into the editor's draft. Note that the section heading is also edited due to Issue 240 where the links that should land at this section are broken because 2 sections have the same heading title. To fix, I proposed a title change. If you wish to see the specific changes, look at Pull Request 246.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
The proposed response can be incorporated into the editor's draft, as-is.	2
The proposed changes can be incorporated into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	6
The proposal isn't ready yet.

Details

Responder	Proposed update to the Closed Functionality section	Comments
Phil Day	The proposed response can be incorporated into the editor's draft, as-is.	Looks good to me.
Shadi Abou-Zahra	The proposed changes can be incorporated into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	#1. Overall, I welcome these edits but feel the new section doesn't clearly explain that a single application could have a combination of open and closed functionality areas. The previous example of an ebook reader application explained this quite well, where the actual book reader app/player might work differently from the surrounding UI (e.g. in providing access to screen readers vs self-voicing, adhering to system settings such as text size and colors, etc.). #2. The list of examples in this section is different from the very similar list in the definition of closed functionality, which is a little confusing. I suggest using one and the same list, either in both places or only once. I also suggest adding ebook readers (hardware products) as another example because many people do not realize that these types of devices are very different from tablet computers, which are more open and generally also more powerful. #3. I agree that we need a different title for this section but please don't use the term "product" this way because it's a keyword in the context of the European Accessibility Act (EAA). It basically means hardware devices as opposed to the more generic meaning, which could include both hardware and software entities. Maybe "Closed Functionality Situations", "Closed Functionality Contexts", or "Comments on Closed Functionality" could be better.
Olivia Hogan-Stark	The proposed changes can be incorporated into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	In reading the section, I just had some small, take-or-leave edits I would consider making in the last paragraph: - Take out "make" in front of "comment" - change "application of" to "applying" I agree with Shadi's points. #1. Perhaps the examples of products with closed functionality include section could include more details. #2. Lists should be same. #3. Maybe "Closed Functionality Examples."
Loïc Martínez Normand	The proposed changes can be incorporated into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	I have an edit suggestion, to split the first (long) paragraph in two. The second paragraph would start at "ICT products with closed functionality don't allow...". I also agree with Shadi's points: #1. I think that an additional text on an example of "partial closed" (the ebook reader app) is a good idea. #2. Agree that the list of examples should be the same here and in the definition of closed functionality #3. Agree to not mentioning "products" in the title. I prefer "Comments on Closed Functionality".
Mike Pluke	The proposed changes can be incorporated into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	I agree with all the important points that Shadi has made.
Bruce Bailey	The proposed changes can be incorporated into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	I suggest a couple more examples, as the terminology seems to be in flux: self-service checkout, self-service devices, restaurant hand-held POS ?
Sam Ogami	The proposed changes can be incorporated into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	I would recommend including the word software to the examples considered to help clarify that WCAG2ITC does not include hardware aspects of ICT. With change "Examples the task force has considered when developing guidance include the software of: printers, watches, iOT devices, telephones...." Remove "nor does it recommend" and make it more clear that SC should not be used for hardware of closed functionality products. "This document does not make comment on those standards, WCAG success criteria should not be used as requirements for hardware aspects of closed functionality products.'
Gregg Vanderheiden	The proposed response can be incorporated into the editor's draft, as-is.	this sentence appears to be a little redundant -- but it is fine to have the repetition or summary in short form of the long paragraph above Because closed functionality, by definition, does not allow a user to attach assistive technology, WCAG success criteria that assume the presence of assistive technology will not facilitate accessibility as WCAG 2.2 intends. Where assistive technologies cannot be used, other output and input solutions are needed to achieve the intent of these success criteria. PS vis-a-vis the original commenter -- the apps on mobile phone are not necessarily closed - it is the phone themselves that are closed unless the apps do not support the built in accessibility features. However the closed nature of the phones means that apps cannot depend on assistive technologies that are not in the phone so may have to provide some functionality themselves. I don't know if we want to get into that level of detail or not. just an observation.