w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire WCAG2ICT - Review proposed changes to address Issue 145, answers to public comments, and SOTD
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 2024-04-23 to 2024-05-01.
7 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- (Part 1 of 3 for Issue 145) Proposed updates to 5 SC that are applied to "sets of documents/software"
- (Part 2 of 3 for Issue 145) Proposals for changes to the Guidance in this Document section
- (Part 3 of 3 for Issue 145) Proposed changes to the introductory content in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section
- Public commments: Proposed answer to Issue 226
- Public commments: Proposed answer to Issue 257
- Public commments: Proposed answer to Issue 221
- Review: SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 1.4.10 Reflow
- Review: Proposed updates to Status of this Document
1. (Part 1 of 3 for Issue 145) Proposed updates to 5 SC that are applied to "sets of documents/software"
Refresh your memory on Issue 145: Add info/content on the WCAG exemptions in regulatory work. For additional references to work we've done so far, here are the survey results for Issue 145 and meeting discussion on survey question 1. Due to this input there were a number of changes requested resulting in a number of alternate proposals. These proposals are captured in a Google doc (as best as Mary Jo could capture them). Each of the questions in this survey will point to the specific part of the Google doc that contains the proposals for that question. Y
Issue 145 content proposals review is split into 3 parts. One part for each section that changed, which hopefully will make the review more manageable. The pull request previously reviewed has not been updated at this time and won't be until we settle on the exact text to use.
For this question, review the changes to the indicated Note in the general WCAG2ICT guidance for 5 success criteria. The change is the same in all of those locations.
The part of the Google doc to review for this question is Survey Question 1 Proposals.
Indicate which proposal you prefer. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc. If no edits are needed, indicate that in the entry field.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Prefer Proposal 0. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | |
| Prefer Proposal 1. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | |
| Prefer Proposal 2. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | 1 |
| Prefer Proposal 3. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | 6 |
| Prefer Proposal 4. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | |
| Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) |
Details
| Responder | (Part 1 of 3 for Issue 145) Proposed updates to 5 SC that are applied to "sets of documents/software" | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mitchell Evan | Prefer Proposal 3. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | I prefer Proposal 3, with grammar fix: add a comma after "objectives". I can also accept Proposal 0. I do not support Proposal 4. Details and examples of "set of software programs" and "set of documents" are already covered in their respective linked definitions; if further information is needed about them then it should be in the definitions. |
| Phil Day | Prefer Proposal 3. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | Would also accept proposal 2. |
| Chris Loiselle | Prefer Proposal 3. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | |
| Bruce Bailey | Prefer Proposal 3. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | |
| Sam Ogami | Prefer Proposal 2. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | Who are the other stakeholders in prop 3? |
| Loïc Martínez Normand | Prefer Proposal 3. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | I can accept proposal 2. |
| Mike Pluke | Prefer Proposal 3. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) |
2. (Part 2 of 3 for Issue 145) Proposals for changes to the Guidance in this Document section
For this question, review the various proposals in the proposed changes to Guidance in this Document section where some content is intended to be split into a new section and additional guidance added.
Indicate which proposal you prefer. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc. If no edits are needed, indicate that in the entry field.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Prefer Proposal 0. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | |
| Prefer Proposal 1. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | |
| Prefer Proposal 2. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | |
| Prefer Proposal 3. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | 3 |
| Prefer Proposal 4. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | 3 |
| Something else. Provide a detailed proposal either here or in the Google doc. |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | (Part 2 of 3 for Issue 145) Proposals for changes to the Guidance in this Document section | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mitchell Evan | Prefer Proposal 4. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | I tried to come up with a new proposal, such as a rephrasing of Chris's proposal in survey question 1, but ended up at "less is more." |
| Phil Day | Prefer Proposal 3. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | Would also accept 1 or 2 |
| Chris Loiselle | Prefer Proposal 3. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | I'd say that I prefer Proposal 3, however would lean toward including the updated regulator phrasing used in (Part 1 of 3 for Issue 145) Proposed updates to 5 SC that are applied to "sets of documents/software" proposal 3 in this update to the Google Doc to align how we use "regulators" so we are consistent with what we are stating throughout the note. |
| Bruce Bailey | Prefer Proposal 3. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | As I noted in the Google doc, the second paragraph should be geared towards developers. |
| Sam Ogami | ||
| Loïc Martínez Normand | Prefer Proposal 4. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | I agree with Proposal 4 to not include content pointing to what others have done. I can accept Proposal 3 if that is the consensus. |
| Mike Pluke | Prefer Proposal 4. (If needed, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) |
3. (Part 3 of 3 for Issue 145) Proposed changes to the introductory content in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section
For this question, review the proposals made in the Google doc for the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section which propose changes to the last paragraph of the introductory content for this section.
Indicate which proposal you prefer. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc. If no edits are needed, indicate that in the entry field.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Prefer Proposal 0. (If edits are desired, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | 1 |
| Prefer Proposal 1. (If edits are desired, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | |
| Prefer Proposal 2. (If edits are desired, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | |
| Prefer Proposal 3. (If edits are desired, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | 2 |
| Prefer Proposal 4. (If edits are desired, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | 4 |
| Something else. (Make your alternate proposal either in the survey or the issue.) |
Details
| Responder | (Part 3 of 3 for Issue 145) Proposed changes to the introductory content in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mitchell Evan | Prefer Proposal 4. (If edits are desired, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | Proposal 4, changing "regulators" to "stakeholders (such as regulators)" |
| Phil Day | Prefer Proposal 4. (If edits are desired, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | Would also accept 3, then 1. |
| Chris Loiselle | Prefer Proposal 3. (If edits are desired, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | |
| Bruce Bailey | Prefer Proposal 4. (If edits are desired, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | +1 to Mitch's comment to broaden "regulators" to "stakeholders" |
| Sam Ogami | Prefer Proposal 0. (If edits are desired, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | Option 1 is OK also. 2 - 4 are not needed. |
| Loïc Martínez Normand | Prefer Proposal 4. (If edits are desired, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) | I have proposed an edit to replace "should" by "will need to". In addition I agree with Mitch's proposal on "stakeholders". I can accept proposal 3. |
| Mike Pluke | Prefer Proposal 3. (If edits are desired, provide detailed changes here or in the Google doc.) |
4. Public commments: Proposed answer to Issue 226
The agreed update to the 1.4.10 Reflow notes has been incorporated into the editor's draft. Review the Proposed TF answer to Issue 226. For reference, here is a link to Issue 226: Where a technology does not support an SC.
Indicate whether this issue answer is sufficient. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | 5 |
| The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | |
| Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) | 2 |
Details
| Responder | Public commments: Proposed answer to Issue 226 | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mitchell Evan | Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) | Option 2: "Mitch’s edit combining options 0 and 1" |
| Phil Day | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | Prefer option 1 |
| Chris Loiselle | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Sam Ogami | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Loïc Martínez Normand | Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) | +1 to "Option 2: Mitch’s edit combining options 0 and 1" |
| Mike Pluke | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | I'm not really sure what the "Proposed answer" is. I prefer Option 1. |
5. Public commments: Proposed answer to Issue 257
The agreed update to the 1.4.10 Reflow notes has been incorporated into the editor's draft. Review the Proposed TF answer to Issue 257. For reference, here is a link to Issue 257: Clarity on testing 1.4.10 Reflow on mobile devices.
Indicate whether this issue answer is sufficient. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | 4 |
| The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | 3 |
| Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) |
Details
| Responder | Public commments: Proposed answer to Issue 257 | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mitchell Evan | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | Add to the part about the mobile task force: "Having said that, it is our understanding that current versions of Android and iOS do support 320 CSS pixel width equivalent when display scaling is applied" |
| Phil Day | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Chris Loiselle | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Sam Ogami | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Loïc Martínez Normand | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | +1 to Mitch's proposal. |
| Mike Pluke | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | I support Mitch's addition to the proposed answer. |
6. Public commments: Proposed answer to Issue 221
The agreed update to the 1.4.10 Reflow notes has been incorporated into the editor's draft. Review the Proposed TF answer to Issue 221. For reference, here is a link to Issue 221: 1.4.10 Reflow applied to self-service terminals/kiosks.
Indicate whether this issue answer is sufficient. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | 4 |
| The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | 3 |
| Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) |
Details
| Responder | Public commments: Proposed answer to Issue 221 | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mitchell Evan | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | The comment itself is fine. The quotation of our content in "problematic for closed" should be updated to match what we decide there. |
| Phil Day | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Chris Loiselle | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Sam Ogami | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Loïc Martínez Normand | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | I agree with Mitch. We should update the quotation to what we agree at the end for 1.4.10. |
| Mike Pluke | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | +1 to Mitch's proposed update. |
7. Review: SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 1.4.10 Reflow
When working on Issue 221 and scrutinizing the SC problematic for closed functionality, there may need to be changes to the existing editor's draft content. Please review the existing text and proposal for a potential change to 1.4.10 Reflow SC problematic for closed content.
Indicate whether this issue answer is sufficient. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Prefer Option 0, as-is. | 3 |
| Prefer Option 0, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | |
| Prefer Option 1, as-is. | 1 |
| Prefer Option 1, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | |
| Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) | 3 |
Details
| Responder | Review: SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 1.4.10 Reflow | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mitchell Evan | Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) | I added option 2, "Mitch's edits", because: (a) I don't think font size is normatively relevant to 1.4.10. (b) There should not be a blanket exception for “does not display large chunks of text and only has UI controls,” but it must be evaluated case by case per normative WCAG. |
| Phil Day | Prefer Option 1, as-is. | Would also accept option 2 |
| Chris Loiselle | Prefer Option 0, as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | Prefer Option 0, as-is. | |
| Sam Ogami | Prefer Option 0, as-is. | |
| Loïc Martínez Normand | Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) | I agree with option 2 "Mitch's edits" |
| Mike Pluke | Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) | +1 to Option 2 with Mitch's edits. |
8. Review: Proposed updates to Status of this Document
Review the proposed updates to the Status of this Document section proposed in PR 344. You can read the preview of the changes in-context at Full SOTD section with changes incorporated.
Indicate whether this issue answer is sufficient. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | 6 |
| The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | 1 |
| Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) |
Details
| Responder | Review: Proposed updates to Status of this Document | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Mitchell Evan | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Phil Day | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Chris Loiselle | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | I suggest something stronger than "the intent of this work" -- maybe "the purpose of this work" ? |
| Sam Ogami | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Loïc Martínez Normand | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Mike Pluke | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. |
More details on responses
- Mitchell Evan: last responded on 25, April 2024 at 04:33 (UTC)
- Phil Day: last responded on 25, April 2024 at 15:54 (UTC)
- Chris Loiselle: last responded on 30, April 2024 at 13:39 (UTC)
- Bruce Bailey: last responded on 30, April 2024 at 14:19 (UTC)
- Sam Ogami: last responded on 1, May 2024 at 19:54 (UTC)
- Loïc Martínez Normand: last responded on 1, May 2024 at 22:05 (UTC)
- Mike Pluke: last responded on 1, May 2024 at 22:43 (UTC)
Non-responders
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
- Gregg Vanderheiden
- Shadi Abou-Zahra
- Mary Jo Mueller
- 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