W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Review of proposed changes to Guidelines

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 2022-11-15 to 2022-12-01.

9 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Review of Guideline 2.5 proposed content
  2. Review Updates to Guideline 2.3 & 2.4
  3. Initial review of Background section

1. Review of Guideline 2.5 proposed content

Please review the proposed Guideline 2.5 section and indicate its readiness to be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT draft. If you would like to see some changes, document your concerns and provide proposed changes in the comments field below.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Ready to incorporate as-is. 5
Ready to incorporate with changes. 2
Not ready to incorporate.

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Review of Guideline 2.5 proposed contentComments
Chris Loiselle Ready to incorporate as-is.
Gregg Vanderheiden Ready to incorporate with changes. Hmmm. There is a bug in the Understanding document that needs to be fixed by the main WCAG group -- independent of WCAG2ICT. the first line of understanding doc says

"All functionality should be accessible via pointer input devices, for example, via a mouse pointer, a finger interacting with a touch screen, an electronic pencil/stylus, or a laser pointer."

This is not the intent and is not required by any of the SC under this guideline. The SC make it easier to use pointing devices etc. - but "all functionality" is not required to be done through pointing devices. If this were true then every web page with text input would need to have a keyboard as part of the web page. Instead - authors/web-pages rely on the fact that the device will provide a keyboard (on the device) that can be operated by a pointer or mouse. But that is a keyboard and appears to the web page as keyboard input.

Will take this up with the working group -- as a general change.
I think a quick fix to this might be All functionality should be accessible via pointer input devices [used in combination with a pointer operated keyboard on the device], for example, via a mouse pointer, a finger interacting with a touch screen, an electronic pencil/stylus, or a laser pointer.

otherwise I think it does apply as written (with edit)
Bryan Trogdon
Devanshu Chandra Ready to incorporate as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand Ready to incorporate with changes. The first paragraph of the intent of 2.5 is not true in all systems: "All functionality should be accessible via pointer input devices...". There are computing devices (such as e-reader devices with buttons and no touch screen) that don't have any support for pointing devices. I think that the SCs inside 2.5 would "work" in these cases (mainly because of impossibility to "fail"), but I think that the intent should be modified. My suggestion is to modify the beginning of the first paragraph:

"If the hardware has pointing device support, all functionality should be accessible via pointer input devices...."
Mary Jo Mueller Ready to incorporate as-is. In response to others' comments...Be careful not to introduce scope creep. While I understand the confusion and consternation over the language in the Understanding for Guideline 2.4, I think any issues with it should be taken up with the AG WG by opening an issue, and then we can continue to incorporate the exact language from WCAG's understanding. I think that many may not know this, but in the past iteration of WCAG2ICT we never modified the understanding language for any of the SCs and simply included the Intent and Benefits sections as-is for informational purposes. I don't think that the scope of this TF includes making any modifications or clarifications to the understanding for the Guidelines or SCs. You can see web language throughout those parts of the content in the published 2013 WCAG2ICT Note.
Thorsten Katzmann Ready to incorporate as-is.
Bruce Bailey
Mike Pluke Ready to incorporate as-is.

2. Review Updates to Guideline 2.3 & 2.4

WCAG 2.1 changed guideline 2.3 Seizures to add physical reactions to the guideline. Because of this, the WCAG2ICT section needs updating to match. Additionally, there were updates to the Intent section of Understanding 2.4 Navigation.

Please review the proposed updates to Guidelines 2.3 and 2.4 and indicate their readiness to be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT draft. If you would like to see some changes, document your concerns and provide proposed changes in the comments field below.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Ready to incorporate as-is. 6
Ready to incorporate with changes. 2
Not ready to incorporate. 1

Details

Responder Review Updates to Guideline 2.3 & 2.4Comments
Chris Loiselle Ready to incorporate as-is.
Gregg Vanderheiden Ready to incorporate with changes. looks good
one small suggestion add "and identifiable" to indicate that proper markup of headings is important component of this. That would make it:

"Many users of assistive technologies rely on [appropriate and identifiable] headings to skim through information and easily locate the different sections of content."

This should be suggested to working group as a general update to this sentence.

Bryan Trogdon Ready to incorporate with changes.
Devanshu Chandra Ready to incorporate as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand Not ready to incorporate. I'm OK with the update to Guideline 2.3.

But the intent for 2.4 strongly relies on the concept of assistive technologies. Additional wording is required to deal with closed systems, so that developers of such systems get a better understanding on navigation issues in their systems.
Mary Jo Mueller Ready to incorporate as-is. These were simply small changes to WCAG that need direct incorporation. Since this isn't a requirement, but a general guideline, the text of the guidelines have no web-based language or substitutions needed. They are general enough to be applicable as-is to any technology without notes. Any issues with the understanding documents should have an issue opened that would be addressed by the AG WG. Once the text is changed, it would automatically get incorporated into the WCAG2ICT document as included content.

Thorsten Katzmann Ready to incorporate as-is.
Bruce Bailey Ready to incorporate as-is.
Mike Pluke Ready to incorporate as-is.

3. Initial review of Background section

Please review 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

ChoiceAll responders
Results
This has the right amount of information. 9
I'd like to see some additional changes.
I don't know or have no opinion.

Details

Responder Initial review of Background sectionComments
Chris Loiselle This has the right amount of information. I agree with what has been mentioned within https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/20#issuecomment-1314034069
Gregg Vanderheiden This has the right amount of information. One questions should it be "...specifically to non-web documents and software" or "...specifically to non-web documents and non-web software". not sure but we should be consistent. Don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Maybe just put on a list of things to check for consistence at the end.
Bryan Trogdon This has the right amount of information.
Devanshu Chandra This has the right amount of information.
Loïc Martínez Normand This has the right amount of information. Once comments by Bruce and Thorsten are taken into account, I cannot think of anything more to add in the background section.
Mary Jo Mueller This has the right amount of information. Gregg has a good point, and the editors can determine which verbiage is already used and continue to use that consistently in this content as well. I also agree that Bruce and Thorsten's comments should be incorporated as well.
Thorsten Katzmann This has the right amount of information.
Bruce Bailey This has the right amount of information. I there was question to me on GitHub which I will try to clarify. Unfortunately, my earlier comment there was cryptic even to me...
Mike Pluke This has the right amount of information. I agree about incorporating Bruce and Thorsten's additions/amendments and believe that Gregg's alternative wording of "...specifically to non-web documents and non-web software" (throughout) removes any ambiguity that there might be if the second "non-web" is omitted.

More details on responses

  • Chris Loiselle: last responded on 16, November 2022 at 14:50 (UTC)
  • Gregg Vanderheiden: last responded on 29, November 2022 at 21:10 (UTC)
  • Bryan Trogdon: last responded on 30, November 2022 at 14:36 (UTC)
  • Devanshu Chandra: last responded on 30, November 2022 at 17:56 (UTC)
  • Loïc Martínez Normand: last responded on 30, November 2022 at 17:57 (UTC)
  • Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 30, November 2022 at 22:55 (UTC)
  • Thorsten Katzmann: last responded on 1, December 2022 at 13:20 (UTC)
  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 1, December 2022 at 14:30 (UTC)
  • Mike Pluke: last responded on 1, December 2022 at 14:30 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  2. Sam Ogami
  3. Mitchell Evan
  4. Charles Adams
  5. Daniel Montalvo
  6. Fernanda Bonnin
  7. Shawn Thompson
  8. Olivia Hogan-Stark
  9. Laura Miller
  10. Anastasia Lanz
  11. Tony Holland
  12. 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.