w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire WCAG2ICT - Miscellaneous content proposals to address work remaining
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 2024-03-26 to 2024-04-03.
8 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Issue 196: Can a non-web software act as, or have, a conforming alternate version?
- Addressing public comments on 1.4.10 Reflow
- SCs Problematic for Closed: 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context)
- SCs Problematic for Closed: 1.4.5 Images of Text
- SCs Problematic for Closed: 2.1.1 Keyboard
- SC Problematic for Closed: 4.1.3 Status Messages
- Issue 266: Adjustments to 4.1.1 Parsing to address AG WG concerns
1. Issue 196: Can a non-web software act as, or have, a conforming alternate version?
Read the discussions on Issue 196: Can a non-web software act as, or have, a conforming alternate version? in both the GitHub discussion topic and the 22 March meeting discussion. The recommendation is to not change the WCAG2ICT document or provide any guidance on what is or isn't a conforming alternative.
Indicate whether you agree with that approach.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Agree, do not make changes for "conforming alternate version". | 7 |
| Disagree, changes are needed. (Make your proposal for the changes needed in the issue or in this survey.) | 1 |
Details
| Responder | Issue 196: Can a non-web software act as, or have, a conforming alternate version? | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Bailey | Disagree, changes are needed. (Make your proposal for the changes needed in the issue or in this survey.) | Regulators desperate need this sort of advise. Who better to write said advise than the people of this TF? |
| Phil Day | Agree, do not make changes for "conforming alternate version". | |
| Mary Jo Mueller | Agree, do not make changes for "conforming alternate version". | Per my comments on the discussion thread, I feel coming up with an approach to "conforming alternate version" is a complex topic that goes beyond the defined scope of our TF unless there are specific notes where applying "conforming alternate version" in a non-web context is problematic or requires word substitutions for web-based terminology. |
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | Agree, do not make changes for "conforming alternate version". | |
| Sam Ogami | Agree, do not make changes for "conforming alternate version". | |
| Chris Loiselle | Agree, do not make changes for "conforming alternate version". | |
| Mike Pluke | Agree, do not make changes for "conforming alternate version". | |
| Loïc Martínez Normand | Agree, do not make changes for "conforming alternate version". |
2. Addressing public comments on 1.4.10 Reflow
This review is on a proposed replacement for notes 6 and 7 in the general guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow.
Read proposals 3A and 3B in the google doc for 1.4.10 Reflow.
Indicate which proposal you prefer and the readiness to incorporate it into the editor's draft.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Incorporate Option 3A, as-is. | 6 |
| Incorporate Option 3A, with edits. (Provide the specific changes needed.) | |
| Prefer Option 3B, as-is. | 1 |
| Incorporate Option 3B, with edits. (Provide the specific changes needed.) | |
| Something else. (Provide the alternate proposal either in the survey or the issue) |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Addressing public comments on 1.4.10 Reflow | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Bailey | Incorporate Option 3A, as-is. | I am also okay with 3B, but have a preference for 3A. |
| Phil Day | Incorporate Option 3A, as-is. | But also happy with 3B if that is the consensus - I just prefer the extra detail in 3A |
| Mary Jo Mueller | ||
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | Incorporate Option 3A, as-is. | |
| Sam Ogami | Prefer Option 3B, as-is. | I still like 3b for simplicity and brevity. I could go with 3a but it is very long and could confuse some. |
| Chris Loiselle | Incorporate Option 3A, as-is. | |
| Mike Pluke | Incorporate Option 3A, as-is. | |
| Loïc Martínez Normand | Incorporate Option 3A, as-is. |
3. SCs Problematic for Closed: 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context)
Review the latest proposal which was changed to address concerns about the use of "requires" from the previous survey on 2.4.4.
NOTE: As a reminder, we previously agreed and updated the introductory content in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section to include the problematic nature of programmatic information for ICT with closed functionality and the need for alternatives to this functionality. This means that the second sentence that was in the previous proposal we reviewed is no longer needed.
Indicate the readiness to incorporate this proposal into the editor's draft.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Incorporate proposed text, as-is. | 3 |
| Incorporate proposed text, with edits. (Specify the exact changes needed.) | 4 |
| Something else. (Make your alternate proposal either in the survey or the issue.) |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | SCs Problematic for Closed: 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Bailey | Incorporate proposed text, as-is. | |
| Phil Day | Incorporate proposed text, with edits. (Specify the exact changes needed.) | I prefer Mike's minor edit to option 2, but would also accept option 1. |
| Mary Jo Mueller | ||
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | Incorporate proposed text, with edits. (Specify the exact changes needed.) | +1 to Mikes note. Okay with "Incorporate proposed text, as-is" as well. |
| Sam Ogami | Incorporate proposed text, as-is. | |
| Chris Loiselle | Incorporate proposed text, as-is. | |
| Mike Pluke | Incorporate proposed text, with edits. (Specify the exact changes needed.) | I also prefer Option 2 with my own minor edit :-) |
| Loïc Martínez Normand | Incorporate proposed text, with edits. (Specify the exact changes needed.) | +1 to Mike's proposal. |
4. SCs Problematic for Closed: 1.4.5 Images of Text
Read the proposals (labeled Option 9 and Option 11) for SC Problematic for Closed Functionality content for 1.4.5 Images of Text in the Google doc.
Indicate which option you prefer and its readiness to incorporate into the editor's draft.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Prefer Option 9, as-is. | 2 |
| Prefer Option 9, with edits. (Make your proposal in the Google doc.) | |
| Prefer Option 11, as-is. | 3 |
| Prefer Option 11, with edits. (Make your proposal in the Google doc.) | 2 |
| Something else. (Make your proposal in the Google doc.) |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | SCs Problematic for Closed: 1.4.5 Images of Text | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Bailey | Prefer Option 11, as-is. | |
| Phil Day | Prefer Option 9, as-is. | Prefer brevity of option 9, but would also accept option 11. |
| Mary Jo Mueller | ||
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | Prefer Option 11, with edits. (Make your proposal in the Google doc.) | I do like how Option 11 offers more details, but I get a bit lost reading sentences with multiple parentheses. Maybe something like: 1.4.5 Images of Text—To enable assistive technology to modify displayed text (e.g., adjusting contrast, increasing font size), high-quality machine-readable text is needed, as opposed to mere images of text. Otherwise, I am good with "Prefer Option 9, as-is." |
| Sam Ogami | Prefer Option 9, as-is. | |
| Chris Loiselle | Prefer Option 11, as-is. | |
| Mike Pluke | Prefer Option 11, as-is. | |
| Loïc Martínez Normand | Prefer Option 11, with edits. (Make your proposal in the Google doc.) | +1 to Olivia's proposal. |
5. SCs Problematic for Closed: 2.1.1 Keyboard
Read the proposals for SC Problematic for Closed Functionality content for 2.1.1 Keyboard in the Google doc.
Indicate which option you prefer: Option 0 (current text), Option 5 (Updated to address use of "requires" per previous survey) and if it is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Prefer Option 0, as-is. | |
| Prefer Option 0, with edits. (Make your proposal in the Google doc.) | |
| Prefer Option 5, as-is. | 7 |
| Prefer Option 5, with edits. (Make your proposal in the Google doc.) | |
| Something else. (Make your proposal in the Google doc.) |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | SCs Problematic for Closed: 2.1.1 Keyboard | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Bailey | Prefer Option 5, as-is. | |
| Phil Day | Prefer Option 5, as-is. | But would also accept option 0. |
| Mary Jo Mueller | ||
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | Prefer Option 5, as-is. | |
| Sam Ogami | Prefer Option 5, as-is. | |
| Chris Loiselle | Prefer Option 5, as-is. | |
| Mike Pluke | Prefer Option 5, as-is. | |
| Loïc Martínez Normand | Prefer Option 5, as-is. |
6. SC Problematic for Closed: 4.1.3 Status Messages
In the previous survey, we determined that 4.1.3 Status messages bullet needs to be made consistent with the language we have for the other programmatic information SCs. This is being combined with proposals regarding the language to address concerns with use of "Requires information in a programmatically determinable form." Please review the proposals in the comment in issue 329 and indicate your preference and if the option you prefer is ready for incorporation into the editor's draft.
NOTE: Once we decide this, similar editorial changes will be made to the other SC that rely upon programmatic information.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Option 1, as-is. | |
| Option 1, with edits. (provide your proposal) | |
| Option 2, as-is. | |
| Option 2, with edits. (provide your proposal) | |
| Option 3, as-is. | |
| Option 3, with edits. (provide your proposal) | |
| Option 4, as-is. | 7 |
| Option 4, with edits. (provide your proposal) | |
| Something else (provide your proposal) |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | SC Problematic for Closed: 4.1.3 Status Messages | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Bailey | Option 4, as-is. | I am also okay with 3. Option 2 seemed identical to option 3 (except for the title). |
| Phil Day | Option 4, as-is. | Prefer option 4, but would accept the others - they are all quite similar |
| Mary Jo Mueller | ||
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | Option 4, as-is. | |
| Sam Ogami | Option 4, as-is. | |
| Chris Loiselle | Option 4, as-is. | |
| Mike Pluke | Option 4, as-is. | |
| Loïc Martínez Normand | Option 4, as-is. |
7. Issue 266: Adjustments to 4.1.1 Parsing to address AG WG concerns
This proposal is to try to address concerns raised in Issue 266: AG WG review of 4.1.1 Parsing. Read the proposals in the 4.1.1 Parsing google doc. Indicate which option you prefer and whether it is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Prefer Option 1, as-is | 1 |
| Prefer Option 1, with edits. (Make your proposal for the changes needed in the Google doc or in this survey.) | |
| Prefer Option 2, as-is | 5 |
| Prefer Option 2, with edits. (Make your proposal for the changes needed in the Google doc or in this survey.) | 1 |
| Something else. (Make your proposal for the changes needed in the Google doc or in this survey.) |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Issue 266: Adjustments to 4.1.1 Parsing to address AG WG concerns | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Bailey | Prefer Option 2, as-is | I am also okay with Option 1. |
| Phil Day | Prefer Option 2, with edits. (Make your proposal for the changes needed in the Google doc or in this survey.) | DOM needs defining as was done in option 1. I would also accept option 1 |
| Mary Jo Mueller | ||
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | Prefer Option 2, as-is | I feel like "Prefer option 2, as-is" as it simplifies the guidance by referencing the WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 Editorial Errata. |
| Sam Ogami | Prefer Option 2, as-is | |
| Chris Loiselle | Prefer Option 1, as-is | |
| Mike Pluke | Prefer Option 2, as-is | |
| Loïc Martínez Normand | Prefer Option 2, as-is |
More details on responses
- Bruce Bailey: last responded on 27, March 2024 at 21:52 (UTC)
- Phil Day: last responded on 28, March 2024 at 10:03 (UTC)
- Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 28, March 2024 at 22:24 (UTC)
- Olivia Hogan-Stark: last responded on 2, April 2024 at 17:26 (UTC)
- Sam Ogami: last responded on 3, April 2024 at 05:27 (UTC)
- Chris Loiselle: last responded on 3, April 2024 at 12:03 (UTC)
- Mike Pluke: last responded on 3, April 2024 at 21:33 (UTC)
- Loïc Martínez Normand: last responded on 3, April 2024 at 23:02 (UTC)
Non-responders
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
- Gregg Vanderheiden
- Shadi Abou-Zahra
- Mitchell Evan
- Charles Adams
- Daniel Montalvo
- Fernanda Bonnin
- Shawn Thompson
- 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