W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire WCAG2ICT-Review of proposed content for 1.4.12 Text Spacing and 1.4.5 Images of Text

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 2024-02-26 to 2024-02-29.

4 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. (1 of 4) 1.4.12 Text Spacing - Guidance on Applying, Introductory Paragraph
  2. (2 of 4) 1.4.12 Text Spacing - Guidance on Applying, SC Text
  3. (3 of 4) 1.4.12 Text Spacing - Review new proposed Note 3
  4. (4 of 4) 1.4.12 Text Spacing - SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section
  5. 1.4.5 Images of Text - SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section

1. (1 of 4) 1.4.12 Text Spacing - Guidance on Applying, Introductory Paragraph

Read the Google doc content Guidance - Introductory Paragraph for 1.4.12 and indicate whether you prefer Option 1 or 2 and if you think your preferred proposal is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer option 1, as-is.
Prefer option 1, with edits. (Propose your changes either in the survey or in the Google doc.)
Prefer option 2, as-is. 4
Prefer option 2, with edits. (Propose your changes either in the survey or in the Google doc.)
This proposal isn't ready yet. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc.

Details

Responder (1 of 4) 1.4.12 Text Spacing - Guidance on Applying, Introductory ParagraphComments
Phil Day Prefer option 2, as-is.
Laura Miller Prefer option 2, as-is.
Mike Pluke Prefer option 2, as-is.
Bruce Bailey Prefer option 2, as-is.

2. (2 of 4) 1.4.12 Text Spacing - Guidance on Applying, SC Text

Review the two proposals for the SC Text in the Google doc section SC Text proposals for 1.4.12.

Indicate your preference for the SC Text - Option 0 or Option 3. Suggest any edits or changes in the Google doc.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Option 0, as-is.
Prefer Option 0, with edits (proposed in the Google doc).
Prefer Option 3, as-is. 4
Prefer Option 3, with edits (proposed in the Google doc).
This proposal isn't ready yet. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc.

Details

Responder (2 of 4) 1.4.12 Text Spacing - Guidance on Applying, SC TextComments
Phil Day Prefer Option 3, as-is.
Laura Miller Prefer Option 3, as-is.
Mike Pluke Prefer Option 3, as-is.
Bruce Bailey Prefer Option 3, as-is. I am also okay with Option 0.

3. (3 of 4) 1.4.12 Text Spacing - Review new proposed Note 3

This question is about a new note proposed for SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing to be added before the two notes we currently have in the editor's draft.

NOTE: The content of the other two notes will remain unchanged. They will automatically get renumbered in the editor's draft when it is built.

See the google doc section heading Note 3: Proposal for a new note. The Friday sub-group narrowed down all of the iterations to Option 2. Indicate its readiness to include in the editor's draft. Suggest edits or changes in the Google doc.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Proposed Note 3 can be incorporated into the editor's draft, as-is. 2
Proposed Note 3 can be incorporated into the editor's draft, with the edits proposed in the Google doc. 2
This proposal isn't ready yet. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc.

Details

Responder (3 of 4) 1.4.12 Text Spacing - Review new proposed Note 3Comments
Phil Day Proposed Note 3 can be incorporated into the editor's draft, as-is.
Laura Miller Proposed Note 3 can be incorporated into the editor's draft, with the edits proposed in the Google doc.
Mike Pluke Proposed Note 3 can be incorporated into the editor's draft, with the edits proposed in the Google doc. I had difficulty working out what edits I was supposed to be agreeing to, but I concluded that it was the one labelled Option 2: New note proposal - which looks fine.
Bruce Bailey Proposed Note 3 can be incorporated into the editor's draft, as-is. Laura's Option 2 is what I presume to be Proposed Note 3, and it is fine.

4. (4 of 4) 1.4.12 Text Spacing - SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section

A review to ensure consistency between 1.4.12 Text Spacing and 4.1.3 Status Messages in the section SC Problematic for Closed Functionality.

NOTE:

SC 1.4.12 was not on the list to be changed in this section, do you agree it needs no changes? If you think it does need changes, make your proposal in the Google doc section for 1.4.12 content for SC Problematic for Closed Functionality

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
The 1.4.12 Text Spacing content in this section needs no changes. 3
The 1.4.12 Text Spacing content in this section needs changes. (Propose changes in the Google doc. 1
Something else. Make proposals here or in the Google doc.

Details

Responder (4 of 4) 1.4.12 Text Spacing - SC Problematic for Closed Functionality sectionComments
Phil Day The 1.4.12 Text Spacing content in this section needs no changes.
Laura Miller The 1.4.12 Text Spacing content in this section needs no changes.
Mike Pluke The 1.4.12 Text Spacing content in this section needs no changes.
Bruce Bailey The 1.4.12 Text Spacing content in this section needs changes. (Propose changes in the Google doc. My proposed changes are in the Google doc as Option 2.
> 1.4.12 Text Spacing — In closed functionality software the ability for users to modify line, paragraph, letter, or word spacing is rarely supported. Regardless, the Success Criterion applies as written and as noted in the Applying SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing to Non-Web Documents and Software.

I added a placeholder for Option 3.

5. 1.4.5 Images of Text - SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section

This review is for proposed content for the SC 1.4.5 Images of Text in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section. Review options 6, 7, and 8 in the Google doc for 1.4.5 . Option 0 is what is in the current WCAG2ICT editor's draft which will be replaced by the text we reach consensus on.

Indicate which proposal option you prefer, and indicate any edits or new proposals in the google doc.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Option 6, as-is.
Prefer Option 6, with edits. (Changes proposed in Google doc)
Prefer Option 7, as-is. 1
Prefer Option 7, with edits. (Changes proposed in Google doc)
Prefer Option 8, as-is. 3
Prefer Option 8, with edits. (Changes proposed in Google doc)
Something else. Make proposals here or in the Google doc.

Details

Responder 1.4.5 Images of Text - SC Problematic for Closed Functionality sectionComments
Phil Day Prefer Option 7, as-is. Prefer option 7 as it gives more helpful guidance than just "programmatically determinable form"
Laura Miller Prefer Option 8, as-is.
Mike Pluke Prefer Option 8, as-is. I agree with the motivations behind Bruce's proposals, but I wonder if this is taking us too far outside our brief into the realm of proposing specific techniques about how the intent can be met.
Bruce Bailey Prefer Option 8, as-is. I think the CF note should (1) paraphrase intent and purpose of 1.4.5, (2) state why its technical infeasible (i.e., the WCAG definition of text), and (3) give examples of best practices (e.g., starting with large bold fonts, or providing an enlargement feature) which make not meeting 1.4.5 irrelevant because the best practices provide equivalent facilitation (to use the 508/ADA term).

More details on responses

  • Phil Day: last responded on 28, February 2024 at 11:06 (UTC)
  • Laura Miller: last responded on 29, February 2024 at 01:26 (UTC)
  • Mike Pluke: last responded on 29, February 2024 at 12:39 (UTC)
  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 29, February 2024 at 14:12 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Gregg Vanderheiden
  2. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  3. Mary Jo Mueller
  4. Loïc Martínez Normand
  5. Chris Loiselle
  6. Sam Ogami
  7. Mitchell Evan
  8. Charles Adams
  9. Daniel Montalvo
  10. Fernanda Bonnin
  11. Shawn Thompson
  12. Olivia Hogan-Stark
  13. Anastasia Lanz
  14. Devanshu Chandra
  15. Bryan Trogdon
  16. Thorsten Katzmann
  17. Tony Holland
  18. 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.