w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire Example Scenarios
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.
This questionnaire was open from 2022-01-07 to 2022-03-01.
7 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Q1: Making content accessible may not be achievable immediately
- Q2: Not all content has the same relevance, for example legacy content
- Q3: Content may be accumulating too rapidly to make accessible
- Q4: Content provider does not own or directly control the content
- Q5: Content providers may have dependencies on other services
- Q6: Bugs and other issues of oversight can always occur
- Q7: Content is experiment for all users, including people with disabilities
- Q8: Live and real-time content may not support same accessibility levels
- Q9: Limitations to how accessible content can be made
1. Q1: Making content accessible may not be achievable immediately
Please review the section “Making content accessible may not be achievable immediately” and provide your thoughts in the comments field below. Consider:
- Do you have any disagreements with this section?
- Are there aspects that you find particularly useful?
Details
| Responder | Q1 Comments |
|---|---|
| Gregg Vanderheiden | The Role of the Tech Std is to define what is accessible. (Bullet 3 - which should be bullet 1) Bullets 1 and 2 focus on telling the policy people what they should do - and that is not the Role of the tech std though it can be useful to policymakers. it should be listed as secondary though. Suggested wording change in ALL CAPS Role of Accessible Policy.... - define when content NEEDS OR DOES NOT NEED TO be made immediately accessible. DELETE - "relevance of content to people with disabilities" RATIONALE [People with disabilities are people first - there is nothing relevant to people that is not relevant to people with disabilities ] ADD - "need for immediate access to the information" I think it would be useful to add something about information that is "bulk archival" by nature (only used by researchers) and is made accessible promptly when requests are made by a researcher with a disability. |
| Wilco Fiers | I don't know if text descriptions for paintings is a particularly strong example. That's not a time-consuming activity. There are probably better examples we can give here. The second example doesn't seem that strong to me either. Seems that MOOC provider made some bad decisions in the past. Should an org be allowed to claim conformance for doing the bare minimum and promising to do better in the future? In Finland's recent EU monitoring report they said organisations were abusing the 2-week allowance for making videos accessible by just removing video after 2 weeks so they wouldn't have to make it accessible at all. I think some provision will be needed that ensures content is actually made accessible, and won't be taken down. |
| Bruce Bailey | It seems to me that milestones or time frames should be included in standard or policy. I recommend closer tracking to the verbatim phrasing from 2.x 1.1.1. It was not always clear to me when describe/descriptive/descriptive was in the context of "identification" and when it was meant to be a textual equivalent. For example: descriptions for each scanned image in text -> detailed text alternative (i.e., one meant to serve the equivalent purpose) for each scanned image identifying and describing the inaccessible content -> descriptive identification of the inaccessible content |
| Jeanne F Spellman | I think we also need examples where this does not apply (for all the sections). For example, content where no accessible technology exists would not be in this category. Content where there is no timeline for making the content accessible is a failure of this category. In addition to an accessibility statement, there should be a way for users to search for meta data on the accessibility of the media or text. People should not have to pay or waste time on material that is not accessible to them. I don't want to use academic examples because equal access to learning is protected under many national laws and would be a big distraction from the principles we are trying to put forward. I don't want to forget the academic examples, because we will need to test any solution with them, but putting them upfront is going to be a distraction. |
| Darryl Lehmann | My primary disagreement is to avoid prescribing a mechanism to not conform with accessibility due to time or effort constraints and to avoid the added complexity where we can. When we discuss time to conform, it really sounds like a regulatory concern. Perhaps a suggestion to regulators could be added. Perhaps, we offer the idea of inclusive markup, metadata, or another mechanism to indicate that a component is conforming, without it the component is not. If necessary, we could offer the idea of a "Time to completion" flag. I realize that some content will simple not be reachable by every user, but this could be used as a meaningful check back with us soon flag. Alternatively, we could offer the idea of phased accessibility levels (as we are doing), so that a baseline level is meet at all times, and time is allowed by virtue to increase the level of conformance. I think the balance needed here is to allow "good actors" to indicate intention but not allowing "bad actors" to abuse a loop hole. Does our specification need to surface this "work in progress" content note, or streamline to say it's not conformant and allow the regulators to mandate / organization to inform their users? |
| Andrew Somers | I have comments that may be tangential, though are important in these context. Rather than discuss here, I added them to the talk page at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Talk:Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios#Censorship.2C_Civil_Rights.2C_and_Related |
| Keyonda Smith | "making content accessible requires time: " is extremely important to highlight as developers and requestors may not have a good grasp on the time investment. |
2. Q2: Not all content has the same relevance, for example legacy content
Please review the section “Not all content has the same relevance, for example legacy content” and provide your thoughts in the comments field below. Consider:
- Do you have any disagreements with this section?
- Are there aspects that you find particularly useful?
Details
| Responder | Q2 Comments |
|---|---|
| Gregg Vanderheiden | RE ROLE OF TECH STD As above - last bullet should be first Then the reporting related bullets finally - notes to policy people listed as secondary role =================================================================== RE ROLE OF POLICY Not clear what "less relevant" means. Less is a relative term and doesnt mean anything in the absolute. Something that is very bad is "less " bad than something that is extremely bad. Suggest changing it to what one means. "Not relevant enough to warrant action?" "Not relevant enough to ?????" are there unjustifiable circumstances for individuals to request accessible versions of content? I think it might mean "reasonable" and I would change it from 'circumstances' to requests. Maybe something like "to help define parameters for determining what might be considered reasonable and unreasonable requests" |
| Wilco Fiers | For the university example, I wonder if there's a requirement to run tools for automatic correction. Recognising languages changes, auto-generated text alternatives. That kind of thing. I wonder if it should be the responsibility of legislators to decide on dates for what is and isn't "legacy". |
| Bruce Bailey | WRT to policy, suggest adding to first group of bullets that legacy content might covered by deprecated requirements. Example from Revised 508 Standard: https://www.access-board.gov/ict#E202.2 Any component or portion of existing ICT that complies with an earlier standard issued pursuant to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (as republished in Appendix D), and that has not been altered on or after January 18, 2018, shall not be required to be modified to conform to the Revised 508 Standards. |
| Jeanne F Spellman | This university example is acceptable, because it details all the efforts the university has to do and it assumes that all course material is accessible. I would also add after "There is a way to report issues": "and the university has resources allocated to address the problem in a timely manner for that course". Or something like that. In the Role of the Technical Standard section, I would like to add: Reference the relevant guidelines with the the guidance of what the author or owner needs to do that is a part of the example. The author has to do everything they can. For example, the course description has to have meta data that indicates that the course contains non-accessible content for the following disabilities, so that the student knows not to enroll in this course. |
| Darryl Lehmann | I do agree that some content types, particularly legacy content, is less relevant to conformance requirements. Factoring out governmental and academic perspectives, bringing legacy material that may be irrelevant to all users into conformance is impractical. The key being equity to access. If legacy content is still relevant and accessible to the broader community, we should offer compliance/regulatory notes to indicate the need to move this content forward. This may tie into the previous pattern relating to "Time to completion" For what it's worth, indicating that content has not yet been made accessible via the lack of inclusive markup, metadata, or similar can feel inadvertently negative to content creators with a backlog of content to move forward. But this shouldn't hinder informing users that require inclusive design from finding it. I agree that defining a means to connect with content creators for the justified accommodation need would be invaluable here. Would really help to prioritize if backlogs are tremendous. The idea of stating accessibility features available and/or stating what content was not able to be made accessible would be useful here. eg. a 3D model presented in WebGL online can be made accessible to a degree via a robust description and tabbable "jump points", but what if a 3D Printable model we're attached with the "accessibleFeature" = "3D Printable"? eg. a VR 360 Video can be oriented in realtime, the video may be described but is likely a candidate for content that can't be made accessible to date. |
| Andrew Somers | |
| Keyonda Smith | This issue also flows into the consideration of retroactively making content accessible. There is a lot of discussion and a lot of reviewing of recent cases that would determine what that looks like here we mentioned archival. But does that mean resources that have been archived but also may still be used? There's a lot of questions surrounding when does accessibility start. |
3. Q3: Content may be accumulating too rapidly to make accessible
Please review the section “Content may be accumulating too rapidly to make accessible” and provide your thoughts in the comments field below. Consider:
- Do you have any disagreements with this section?
- Are there aspects that you find particularly useful?
Details
| Responder | Q3 Comments |
|---|---|
| Gregg Vanderheiden | these all seem to be variations on a theme. The role of tech std in each is 1) determining what makes them accessible 2) how to report what is and is not accessible 3) comments to policymakers about the tech std groups feelings about what should be required of whom, when. The role of the Policymakers is to create policy about what is reasonable - for whom - and when. -- and what exceptions there should be. the examples are GREAT for highlighting the complexity of doing the above - but I wouldn't keep creating new ROLEs for each situation. the roles are the same. the outcomes are what is the challenge.. |
| Wilco Fiers | For the first example, I wonder if there needs to be a provision that the more accessible images are findable. I think there is another role here for TR, which is to define what guidance and/or tooling must be provided for content creators to guide them in creating accessible content. |
| Bruce Bailey | As above, please consider: brief descriptions to identify each image -> descriptive identification of each image Policy might also consider if demonstrated crowd sourcing for textual equivalents is possible or a proven track record. |
| Jeanne F Spellman | In the Role of the Technical Standard section, I would like to add: Reference the relevant guidelines with the the guidance of what the author or owner needs to do that is a part of the example. The author has to do everything they can. |
| Darryl Lehmann | I agree that rapidly generated content is a problem to a broader inclusive web. I ponder the need to define other types of generated content here; machine/programmatic generated, third party, content aggregated content et al. I also agree with the technical guidance here as it relates to surfacing accessibility victories as well as issues. The idea of defining what challenges may be present in the content by virtue of it being rapidly accumulating is great. My thoughts here are again "loopholes" need to be curtailed here to avoid abuse. My hope here is that necessity will drive meaningful evolution. First off, does anyone find meaningful value in a stack of one hundred satellite/radar images dumped in a web gallery or similar? Perhaps. But, I feel like it reasonable that most will look to explore a curated sample to gain an understanding. At the very least we can offer the idea of providing such to allow a comparable experience. Now, considering the online shop, I do ponder if crowd sourcing efforts will ever be viable in offering meaningful inclusive content. One can hope, but this does elude to the idea of "user attempted accessibility" or "not reviewed inclusive feature" that may or may not be peer reviewed and built upon. |
| Andrew Somers | |
| Keyonda Smith | It is nearly impossible to think that in a lot of large organizations and institutions all content will be accessible. However, I do believe that there is an expectation that we will be able to achieve a certain percentage that's realistic. This will also be determined by the tools and the training that content developers had at their expense as well as the size of their accessibility oversight leaders. |
4. Q4: Content provider does not own or directly control the content
Please review the section “Content provider does not own or directly control the content” and provide your thoughts in the comments field below. Consider:
- Do you have any disagreements with this section?
- Are there aspects that you find particularly useful?
Details
| Responder | Q4 Comments |
|---|---|
| Gregg Vanderheiden | |
| Wilco Fiers | |
| Bruce Bailey | |
| Jeanne F Spellman | |
| Darryl Lehmann | The use cases here all describe well meaning and well positioned content aggregators attempting to educate its user base on accessibility requirements and offering services to that affect. This is a positive step forward, but I don't think we can reasonable expect this user generated content to conform without a quality check barrier. I don't think we can define such "hold for review" mechanism, but we could offer the idea of an "not reviewed inclusive feature" or "unverified accessibility" flag. The biggest hurdle beyond simple marking it "unverified" is defining what "indirect content" is? A portal could simple aggregate entire websites and pass them off as accessible due to the portal being so. |
| Andrew Somers | |
| Keyonda Smith | Based on the research and the user experience studies that have been conducted it looks as if it doesn't matter who owns the content. Yet, whoever is disseminating the information in the eyes of the end-user is the owner whether they created it or whether it's third-party. Therefore if you are disseminating information or sharing information I believe that you hold responsibility of ensuring its accessibility. Simply because the end-user does not know who owns it all they know is where they got it from. |
5. Q5: Content providers may have dependencies on other services
Please review the section “Content providers may have dependencies on other services” and provide your thoughts in the comments field below. Consider:
- Do you have any disagreements with this section?
- Are there aspects that you find particularly useful?
Details
| Responder | Q5 Comments |
|---|---|
| Gregg Vanderheiden | |
| Wilco Fiers | |
| Bruce Bailey | |
| Jeanne F Spellman | |
| Darryl Lehmann | This section looks at a very similar paradigm to example 1. The idea of a "time to completion" for the payment service tool being bought/brought in. This to me still feels out of purview to an accessibility conformance specification. The idea of a flag or other "work in progress" notice would be applicable here and the means to connect back to request accommodation is warranted as well. The second example being similar to the content aggregator item in example 4. I always take the view of the user visiting sites. If your website is made meaningfully accessible and a social media stream plug-in is not. We should indicate that this component is lacking and that an alternative is provided on the website for key information. |
| Andrew Somers | |
| Keyonda Smith | The comments I made above also apply to this item as well. Whether my service is using a third-party service or not the level of accessibility still should be held to the responsibility of the person who is disseminating the content. |
6. Q6: Bugs and other issues of oversight can always occur
Please review the section “Bugs and other issues of oversight can always occur” and provide your thoughts in the comments field below. Consider:
- Do you have any disagreements with this section?
- Are there aspects that you find particularly useful?
Details
| Responder | Q6 Comments |
|---|---|
| Gregg Vanderheiden | |
| Wilco Fiers | |
| Bruce Bailey | |
| Jeanne F Spellman | |
| Darryl Lehmann | I am overall unsure how to look at this example. Bugs do occur, I don't think we need to path down this trajectory for any conformance implications. A bug renders the content unusable by all users, thus isn't accessible and would be odd to define markup/metadata/flags for what should be a temporary unintended situation. Along the lines of "time to completion" we could offer a "noted accessibility issue" for a bugged component or such. In practice, I do not think developers will focus on marking up a broken component rather than fixing it. |
| Andrew Somers | |
| Keyonda Smith | This goes without saying. I do believe however that we need a better and more consistent way of tracking these bugs and issues within some of our accessibility auditing tools. |
7. Q7: Content is experiment for all users, including people with disabilities
Please review the section “Content is experiment for all users, including people with disabilities” and provide your thoughts in the comments field below. Consider:
- Do you have any disagreements with this section?
- Are there aspects that you find particularly useful?
Details
| Responder | Q7 Comments |
|---|---|
| Gregg Vanderheiden | |
| Wilco Fiers | |
| Bruce Bailey | |
| Jeanne F Spellman | |
| Darryl Lehmann | I do agree that an "experimental-accessibility" flag would be useful here. I like the idea of incorporating some form of accessible feature identifier in general, almost like a contextual role super set! |
| Andrew Somers | |
| Keyonda Smith | Research is always ongoing always need it I don't believe we should ever stop researching. |
8. Q8: Live and real-time content may not support same accessibility levels
Please review the section “Live and real-time content may not support same accessibility levels” and provide your thoughts in the comments field below. Consider:
- Do you have any disagreements with this section?
- Are there aspects that you find particularly useful?
Details
| Responder | Q8 Comments |
|---|---|
| Gregg Vanderheiden | |
| Wilco Fiers | |
| Bruce Bailey | |
| Jeanne F Spellman | |
| Darryl Lehmann | |
| Andrew Somers | |
| Keyonda Smith | agreed |
9. Q9: Limitations to how accessible content can be made
Please review the section “Limitations to how accessible content can be made” and provide your thoughts in the comments field below. Consider:
- Do you have any disagreements with this section?
- Are there aspects that you find particularly useful?
Details
| Responder | Q9 Comments |
|---|---|
| Gregg Vanderheiden | |
| Wilco Fiers | |
| Bruce Bailey | |
| Jeanne F Spellman | |
| Darryl Lehmann | |
| Andrew Somers | |
| Keyonda Smith | This is Generally understood |
More details on responses
- Gregg Vanderheiden: last responded on 11, January 2022 at 02:18 (UTC)
- Wilco Fiers: last responded on 11, January 2022 at 12:50 (UTC)
- Bruce Bailey: last responded on 11, January 2022 at 23:29 (UTC)
- Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 13, January 2022 at 14:29 (UTC)
- Darryl Lehmann: last responded on 26, January 2022 at 15:07 (UTC)
- Andrew Somers: last responded on 16, February 2022 at 03:08 (UTC)
- Keyonda Smith: last responded on 17, February 2022 at 20:11 (UTC)
Non-responders
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
- Janina Sajka
- Shadi Abou-Zahra
- Makoto Ueki
- Peter Korn
- Alastair Campbell
- Léonie Watson
- David Sloan
- Mary Jo Mueller
- John Kirkwood
- Detlev Fischer
- Matt Garrish
- Chris Loiselle
- John Rochford
- Sarah Horton
- JaEun Jemma Ku
- Denis Boudreau
- Rachael Bradley Montgomery
- Francis Storr
- Aparna Pasi
- Ruoxi Ran
- Charles Adams
- Arthur Soroken
- David Fazio
- Daniel Montalvo
- Caryn Pagel
- Todd Libby
- Julia Chen
- Rain Breaw Michaels
- Jaunita George
- Suji Sreerama
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