W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire WCAG2ICT: Review of proposed responses to public comments - group 3

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 2024-03-03 to 2024-03-07.

8 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Public Comment: Issue 216 - Inconsistency between 1.4.12 Text Spacing and 4.1.3 Status Messages
Issues 221, 226, 257: Review proposed changes to 1.4.10 Reflow to address public comments

1. Public Comment: Issue 216 - Inconsistency between 1.4.12 Text Spacing and 4.1.3 Status Messages

Now that we have settled 1.4.12 Text Spacing and 4.1.3 Status Messages and they are both aligned, we can review the draft answer to Issue 216 - Inconsistency between 1.4.12 Text Spacing and 4.1.3 Status Messages. Review the draft issue answer and indicate whether the proposed answer is sufficient and note any edits or alternate proposals.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
The draft answer is sufficient, as-is.	7
The draft answer is sufficient, with the following edits.
The answer is not ready. To expedite the process, please provide your alternate proposal.

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder	Public Comment: Issue 216 - Inconsistency between 1.4.12 Text Spacing and 4.1.3 Status Messages	Comments
Chris Loiselle	The draft answer is sufficient, as-is.
Sam Ogami
Phil Day	The draft answer is sufficient, as-is.
Mitchell Evan	The draft answer is sufficient, as-is.
Fernanda Bonnin	The draft answer is sufficient, as-is.
Bruce Bailey	The draft answer is sufficient, as-is.
Mike Pluke	The draft answer is sufficient, as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand	The draft answer is sufficient, as-is.

2. Issues 221, 226, 257: Review proposed changes to 1.4.10 Reflow to address public comments

This proposal is is for a change to the general guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow as a result of public comments and Sam's concern with the current language noted in Issue 226. Read and understand the public comment issues surrounding 1.4.10 Reflow:

Issue 221
Issue 226 - Specifically note Sam's concern with the current language in the editor's draft.
Issue 257

Review the Google doc proposed changes to the note for 1.4.10 Reflow - Option 4 as compared to the existing text shown in Option 0. Indicate your preference and whether these changes are ready to incorporate into the editor's draft. If needed, provide any further changes or proposals in the Google doc, and comment in the survey any concerns from these issues that have not been sufficiently addressed by the proposed changes.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Prefer Option 0, as-is.	1
Prefer Option 0, with changes (propose them in the Google doc)
Prefer Option 4, as-is	2
Prefer Option 4, with changes (propose them in the Google doc)	2
Something else. (Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc.)	3

Details

Responder	Issues 221, 226, 257: Review proposed changes to 1.4.10 Reflow to address public comments	Comments
Chris Loiselle	Prefer Option 4, as-is
Sam Ogami	Something else. (Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc.)	Option 1. There is no reason to say fail if we are not able to use not applicable. Option 0 is still dose not fix the problem of CFP not being able to reflow. Option 4 is just a repeat of SC and does not provide greater clarity. If the AG WG wanted more clarity then they could rethink the use of not applicable. This SC is not applicable if the underlining system does not allow reflow. Fail is only used in this one SC no other SC why?
Phil Day	Prefer Option 4, as-is
Mitchell Evan	Something else. (Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc.)	I added option 3A, with these edits: - Deleted "or x pixels ... at 400% zoom" (just for brevity — I'm also fine keeping these words) - Changed "scrolling" to "scrolling content" - Changed "When the non-web document or software does not support these dimensions" to "When the underlying user agent or platform does not support these dimensions". This is the key point of the note, and I believe addresses Sam's concern about merely repeating the criterion.
Fernanda Bonnin	Prefer Option 4, with changes (propose them in the Google doc)	with Mitchell's edits. Question: would this note replace Note 6 and 7 on the current draft? I believe this note would make note 7 redundant.
Bruce Bailey	Prefer Option 0, as-is.	Option 4 is okay with me too. The clearer we can make it to regulators (and the like) of how problematic it would be to apply certain SC to non-web software -- the better. Stark and frank is good IMHO.
Mike Pluke	Prefer Option 4, with changes (propose them in the Google doc)	Option 4 with Mitch's edits is my preference.
Loïc Martínez Normand	Something else. (Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc.)	I support Mitch's proposal (3A in Google docs).