w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire WCAG2ICT Work Statement Review
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email addresses: maryjom@us.ibm.com,charles.adams@oracle.com
This questionnaire was open from 2022-09-08 to 2022-09-21.
13 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Objective section
- Scope of work section
- Approach section
- Timeline section
- Liaisons section
- Communication section
- Participation section
- Facilitation section
- Patent policy section
1. Objective section
Review the Objective section of the work statement. Is this section ready to take forward to the Accessibility Guidelines working group to approve?
If your answer is anything other than the yes, it is ready as-is, please describe what needs to change. If you can, propose the changed verbiage you'd like to see and any justification, if needed.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes, it is ready as-is. | 9 |
| Yes, it is ready with modifications. | 3 |
| No, it is not ready. |
Details
| Responder | Objective section | |
|---|---|---|
| Chris Loiselle | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Gregg Vanderheiden | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Devanshu Chandra | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Bryan Trogdon | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | Yes, it is ready with modifications. | Closing right quotation mark is displaying incorrectly in my browser. � |
| Charles Adams | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Fernanda Bonnin | Yes, it is ready with modifications. | minor comments: - There is a question mark icon after the link to the 2013WCAG2ICT - Should be upper case W and G: Working Group Note - Second mention of non-web ICT should say "Technologies" not "technology" - In the same sentence as above, section sounds repetitive: "non-web ICT that are not web content". Suggested edit: "WCAG2ICT was developed to describe how WCAG 2.0 and its principles, guidelines, and success criteria can be applied to non-web Information and Communications Technologies (ICT). |
| Phil Day | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Shadi Abou-Zahra | ||
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, it is ready with modifications. | Pull Request 2682 takes into account all of the suggested editorial changes from Bruce and Fernanda. I had no further suggestions. URL of PR: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2682/files |
| Laura Miller | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Daniel Montalvo | Yes, it is ready as-is. |
2. Scope of work section
Review the Scope of Work section of the work statement. Is this section ready to take forward to the Accessibility Guidelines working group to approve?
If your answer is anything other than the yes, it is ready as-is, please describe what needs to change. If you can, propose the changed verbiage you'd like to see and any justification, if needed.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes, it is ready as-is. | 6 |
| Yes, it is ready with modifications. | 4 |
| No, it is not ready. | 2 |
Details
| Responder | Scope of work section | |
|---|---|---|
| Chris Loiselle | Yes, it is ready with modifications. | (hereafter called “WCAG 2.x�) includes a diamond that contains a question mark, is that on purpose? |
| Gregg Vanderheiden | Yes, it is ready with modifications. | In the last round we found many places where the Understanding WCAG 2.0 document could have its wording fixed to a) fix errors to the document that we discovered in reading it b) make the language make more sense when read in the context of non-web content (usually a word or two) c) tweak language to work better for web and non-web content it was very helpful and created a better document for web and also made it more useful for non-web I would suggest adding that to the list somewhere. > recommendations for edits to the Understanding WCAG 2.x document that are web based but discovered in reading it for WCAG2ICT or that make it more useful for those applying WCAG to non-web content. |
| Devanshu Chandra | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Bryan Trogdon | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | Yes, it is ready with modifications. | Can we consider changing scoping from "non-web ICT" to "non-web documents and software" or "non-web content"? From https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#intro_excluded > This document does not comment on hardware aspects of products, non-user interface aspects of platforms, or user-interface components as individual items, because the basic constructs on which WCAG 2.0 is built do not apply to these. It seems cleaner to me to start right off with this as top-of-mind. |
| Charles Adams | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Fernanda Bonnin | No, it is not ready. | - The WCAG2ICT Note for WCAG 2.0 didn't provide guidance on applying AAA Success Criteria to non-web ICT. AAA S.C. has been recognized as often being unattainable for websites, let alone other ICTs; similarly AAA is not in scope in Section 508 and in EN 301 549 its informative only. Including AAA criteria into the WCAG2ICT TF scope could be taken as a signal that these criteria ought to be applied to software, which would not be appropriate for the reasons outlined above. Therefore, we propose leaving AAA Success Criteria out of scope for WCAG2ICT. - Is it in scope to determine if a S.C is not applicable to non-web content? - Should the link point to the wcag2ict repo? https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues Minor comments: - For uniformity, should have semicolon after every bullet point in out of scope section - There is a question mark icon after first mention of WCAG 2.x |
| Phil Day | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Shadi Abou-Zahra | Have you considered publishing WCAG2ICT as a W3C Statement instead of a WG Note? If so, might be useful to list this as either in scope or out of scope, to avoid this question coming up again in the future. | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, it is ready with modifications. | Pull Request 2682 has taken care of editorial and link issues from Chris and Fernanda and tries to address the changes that Bruce suggested so we can discuss them. URL of PR: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2682/files We will need to come to consensus on the other substantive comments during our Thursday meeting. Leadership has discussed, but not decided on whether we should try to publish as a Working Group Note or W3C Statement. I am not entirely familiar with the differences and the implications that go with it being a W3C Statement. |
| Laura Miller | No, it is not ready. | Is it possible to add to the scope that we will revisit/define what constitutes "non-web technologies" for the purposes of this Note or Statement? Currently written: "clarification of challenges of applying particular WCAG 2.x success criteria to non-web technologies, including closed product software". If applying particular success criteria could be a challenge, why later is "Determining whether WCAG provisions should be applied to non-web content." out of scope? Should we atleast provide the option to note that particular criteria may not have relevance in non-web content or technologies? |
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Daniel Montalvo | Yes, it is ready as-is. |
3. Approach section
Review the Approach section of the work statement. Is this section ready to take forward to the Accessibility Guidelines working group to approve?
If your answer is anything other than the yes, it is ready as-is, please describe what needs to change. If you can, propose the changed verbiage you'd like to see and any justification, if needed.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes, it is ready as-is. | 12 |
| Yes, it is ready with modifications. | 1 |
| No, it is not ready. |
Details
| Responder | Approach section | |
|---|---|---|
| Chris Loiselle | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Gregg Vanderheiden | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Devanshu Chandra | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Bryan Trogdon | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Charles Adams | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Fernanda Bonnin | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Phil Day | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Shadi Abou-Zahra | Yes, it is ready with modifications. | The content of this section is great but it seems a little lengthy and wordy. Also, maybe use sub-headings to separate the different topics in this section in addition to revising the text to be more succinct? |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, it is ready as-is. | I have done some editing in Pull Request 2682 to make the content of this section a bit more succinct, per Shadi's comment. URL of PR: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2682/files This section is only 5 paragraphs, so I'm not sure that sub-headings are really necessary. We can discuss in the meeting. |
| Laura Miller | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Daniel Montalvo | Yes, it is ready as-is. |
4. Timeline section
Review the Timeline section of the work statement. Is this section ready to take forward to the Accessibility Guidelines working group to approve?
If your answer is anything other than the yes, it is ready as-is, please describe what needs to change. If you can, propose the changed verbiage you'd like to see and any justification, if needed.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes, it is ready as-is. | 8 |
| Yes, it is ready with modifications. | 4 |
| No, it is not ready. | 1 |
Details
| Responder | Timeline section | |
|---|---|---|
| Chris Loiselle | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Gregg Vanderheiden | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Devanshu Chandra | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Bryan Trogdon | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | Yes, it is ready with modifications. | Are we right on schedule or has the start date slipped? If the latter, adjust deliverable dates accordingly. |
| Charles Adams | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Fernanda Bonnin | Yes, it is ready with modifications. | - Are we going to wait for WCAG 2.2 to be an official recommendation before publishing the draft? If yes, should it be called out in the timeline? - Minor comment: March -June 2023: should have a semicolon and not a comma after first bullet point |
| Phil Day | Yes, it is ready with modifications. | It might be helpful to add a note about expected timelines for US ADA and EN 301 549 updates - to see how the WCAG2ICT timeline relates to these external factors. We don't have to be bound to these as they could change, but I think the dates have been chosen to feed into these other standards. |
| Shadi Abou-Zahra | No, it is not ready. | I think the timeline is unrealistic. Moreover, it seems to have shifted. The Approach section seems to imply a staggered approach with an interim version with the newly added A & AA Success Criteria followed by another version with the AAA Success Criteria -- I suggest reflecting this with specific milestones and phases of development in the timeline. |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, it is ready with modifications. | In Pull Request 2682 I tried to address the following: Incorporate editorial changes and add in more concrete aspects of having 2 phases of delivery, but no dates for a Phase 2. Phase 2 would address Level AAA and any other technology advancement analysis and guidance. Make some basic updates to the schedule in the timeline section, since the timeline did slip. This is really just a strawman, not a full project management layout of everything. Typically work statements don't even contain any schedule, but it was included since the original WCAG2ICT work statement had it. There is a stated dependency on WCAG 2.2 which, IMO, is sufficient. The details of managing the dependency and all actual milestones and delivery dates will occur outside of this document, and I have drafted a statement to that effect. Is that sufficient? Link to PR: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2682/files NOTE: The exact EN 301 549 schedule has not been established, so I don't want to put it in this document. It will be tracked as a dependency in the project management details I will create in whatever tool the group can work with well. |
| Laura Miller | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Daniel Montalvo | Yes, it is ready as-is. |
5. Liaisons section
Review the Liaisons section of the work statement. Is this section ready to take forward to the Accessibility Guidelines working group to approve?
If your answer is anything other than the yes, it is ready as-is, please describe what needs to change. If you can, propose the changed verbiage you'd like to see and any justification, if needed.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes, it is ready as-is. | 12 |
| Yes, it is ready with modifications. | |
| No, it is not ready. |
Details
| Responder | Liaisons section | |
|---|---|---|
| Chris Loiselle | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Gregg Vanderheiden | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Devanshu Chandra | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Bryan Trogdon | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Charles Adams | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Fernanda Bonnin | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Phil Day | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Shadi Abou-Zahra | ||
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Laura Miller | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Daniel Montalvo | Yes, it is ready as-is. |
6. Communication section
Review the Communication section of the work statement. Is this section ready to take forward to the Accessibility Guidelines working group to approve?
If your answer is anything other than the yes, it is ready as-is, please describe what needs to change. If you can, propose the changed verbiage you'd like to see and any justification, if needed.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes, it is ready as-is. | 10 |
| Yes, it is ready with modifications. | 2 |
| No, it is not ready. |
Details
| Responder | Communication section | |
|---|---|---|
| Chris Loiselle | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Gregg Vanderheiden | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Devanshu Chandra | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Bryan Trogdon | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Charles Adams | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Fernanda Bonnin | Yes, it is ready with modifications. | - Minor comment: missing a space before the link in point 4. |
| Phil Day | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Shadi Abou-Zahra | ||
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, it is ready with modifications. | Fixed Fernanda's editorial comment in Pull Request 2682. No further changes are needed. URL of PR: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2682/files |
| Laura Miller | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Daniel Montalvo | Yes, it is ready as-is. |
7. Participation section
Review the Participation section of the work statement. Is this section ready to take forward to the Accessibility Guidelines working group to approve?
If your answer is anything other than the yes, it is ready as-is, please describe what needs to change. If you can, propose the changed verbiage you'd like to see and any justification, if needed.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes, it is ready as-is. | 12 |
| Yes, it is ready with modifications. | |
| No, it is not ready. |
Details
| Responder | Participation section | |
|---|---|---|
| Chris Loiselle | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Gregg Vanderheiden | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Devanshu Chandra | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Bryan Trogdon | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Charles Adams | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Fernanda Bonnin | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Phil Day | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Shadi Abou-Zahra | ||
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Laura Miller | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Daniel Montalvo | Yes, it is ready as-is. |
8. Facilitation section
Review the Facilitation section of the work statement. Is this section ready to take forward to the Accessibility Guidelines working group to approve?
If your answer is anything other than the yes, it is ready as-is, please describe what needs to change. If you can, propose the changed verbiage you'd like to see and any justification, if needed.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes, it is ready as-is. | 10 |
| Yes, it is ready with modifications. | 3 |
| No, it is not ready. |
Details
| Responder | Facilitation section | |
|---|---|---|
| Chris Loiselle | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Gregg Vanderheiden | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Devanshu Chandra | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Bryan Trogdon | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Charles Adams | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Fernanda Bonnin | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Phil Day | Yes, it is ready with modifications. | Updates to TBD placeholders |
| Shadi Abou-Zahra | Yes, it is ready with modifications. | Would be good to have the remaining roles filled to avoid disruption during the work. |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, it is ready with modifications. | In Pull Request 2682, added in strong markup on the AG WG liaison for consistency. URL of PR: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2682/files Since some roles have not yet been filled, the TBDs will remain until they are. We can update once I've got the roles filled without it affecting anything. |
| Laura Miller | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Daniel Montalvo | Yes, it is ready as-is. |
9. Patent policy section
Review the Patent policy section of the work statement. Is this section ready to take forward to the Accessibility Guidelines working group to approve?
If your answer is anything other than the yes, it is ready as-is, please describe what needs to change. If you can, propose the changed verbiage you'd like to see and any justification, if needed.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes, it is ready as-is. | 12 |
| Yes, it is ready with modifications. | |
| No, it is not ready. |
Details
| Responder | Patent policy section | |
|---|---|---|
| Chris Loiselle | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Gregg Vanderheiden | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Devanshu Chandra | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Bryan Trogdon | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Charles Adams | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Fernanda Bonnin | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Phil Day | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Shadi Abou-Zahra | ||
| Mary Jo Mueller | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Laura Miller | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | Yes, it is ready as-is. | |
| Daniel Montalvo | Yes, it is ready as-is. |
More details on responses
- Devanshu Chandra: last responded on 20, September 2022 at 14:16 (UTC)
- Bryan Trogdon: last responded on 20, September 2022 at 18:21 (UTC)
- Bruce Bailey: last responded on 20, September 2022 at 19:40 (UTC)
- Charles Adams: last responded on 20, September 2022 at 19:46 (UTC)
- Fernanda Bonnin: last responded on 20, September 2022 at 22:41 (UTC)
- Phil Day: last responded on 21, September 2022 at 07:21 (UTC)
- Shadi Abou-Zahra: last responded on 21, September 2022 at 13:20 (UTC)
- Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 22, September 2022 at 00:41 (UTC)
- Laura Miller: last responded on 22, September 2022 at 01:57 (UTC)
- Olivia Hogan-Stark: last responded on 22, September 2022 at 02:23 (UTC)
- Daniel Montalvo: last responded on 22, September 2022 at 10:19 (UTC)
Non-responders
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
- Loïc Martínez Normand
- Mike Pluke
- Sam Ogami
- Mitchell Evan
- Shawn Thompson
- Anastasia Lanz
- 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