W3C

Site Navigation

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 2023-09-21 to 2023-10-04.

8 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

The draft proposal for the section Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 3.3.7 to Non-Web Documents and Software and indicate if you think this is a workable solution for interpretation in non-web contexts.

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
The proposal is acceptable as-is.	5
The proposal needs editorial changes.	2
The proposal isn't ready yet.

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

Responder	Review of proposal for Success Criterion 3.3.7 Redundant Entry	Comments
Mike Pluke	The proposal is acceptable as-is.
Sam Ogami	The proposal is acceptable as-is.
Laura Miller	The proposal is acceptable as-is.
Mary Jo Mueller	The proposal needs editorial changes.	First, I note that the drafted guidance is not technically incorrect. I agree this applies as written, and but I'm thinking that the word substitution to replace "content" with "non-web content" isn't really needed. WCAG2ICT has redefined "content" in the Key Terms section to be "content (on and off the web)". See https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#content-on-and-off-the-web So we may be able to take a simpler approach similar to 1.1.1 Non-text Content where we simply say: This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.7 (also provided below).
Olivia Hogan-Stark
Phil Day	The proposal is acceptable as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand	The proposal needs editorial changes.	I agree with Mary Jo. WCAG2ICT has already defined "content" for non-web documents and software. And because of that there is no need for word replacement.
Fernanda Bonnin	The proposal is acceptable as-is.	Agree with Mary-Jo's comment (word substitution for 'content' is not required)

Do you think a bullet needs to be added to the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality software section for SC 3.3.7 Redundant Entry?

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Yes, a bullet is needed. (Please suggest the text)
No, this SC can be applied as-is to closed functionality software.	8

Responder	Is Redundant Entry problematic for Closed Functionality software?	Comments
Mike Pluke	No, this SC can be applied as-is to closed functionality software.	The second bullet might not be an available option in some closed functionality products, but as the first bullet should always be feasible, it should be possible for all closed functionality products to meet this SC.
Sam Ogami	No, this SC can be applied as-is to closed functionality software.
Laura Miller	No, this SC can be applied as-is to closed functionality software.
Mary Jo Mueller	No, this SC can be applied as-is to closed functionality software.
Olivia Hogan-Stark	No, this SC can be applied as-is to closed functionality software.
Phil Day	No, this SC can be applied as-is to closed functionality software.	Essential clause covers closed functionality in my opinion
Loïc Martínez Normand	No, this SC can be applied as-is to closed functionality software.	I think that SC 3.3.7 applies as-is to closed functionality.
Fernanda Bonnin	No, this SC can be applied as-is to closed functionality software.