CompanionDocsSurvey

The following is a first pass at a survey to collect feedback from people outside the working group on the WCAG companion documents. It is a DRAFT, please do not circulate!

All questions are optional.

The WCAG 2.0 recommendation is the normative standard, and is stable and not changing for the foreseeable future. However, the companion documents for WCAG 2.0 are non-normative and can change. This survey is intended to gather feedback from people who use these documents to determine whether there are needed improvements that can help make the information within them easier to find, understand, or use. The following questions are designed to gather information for this purpose.

General questions

1. Job role: check all that apply: UX developer, Information Architect, Accessibility consultant, other
2. Are you a procurer of accessible technologies?
3. Do you work in the Public or private sector? (education?) (check understanding document for reference?)
4. What percent of your time is focused on accessibility work? (<10%, 10-25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, 75-90%, >90%)
5. How familiar with WCAG 2.0 are you? (1-5)
6. Do you feel that you understand the difference between the purposes and uses of the WCAG 2.0 recommendation (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/), the “Techniques for WCAG 2.0” (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/) document, the “Understanding WCAG 2.0” (http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/) document, and the “How to Meet WCAG 2.0” resource clearly?

Techniques

Regarding the techniques document, please look at the abstract and “status of this document” sections at the top (link).

1. How useful are these sections to you?
2. Recommended improvements or changes?

Please look at a specific single technique (e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H24.html - a simple representative example).

1. What sections of the techniques document are typically most helpful to you? (do a likert scale with least helpful to most helpful for Applicability, UA notes, Description, Examples, Resources, Related Techniques, Tests, Techniques are Informative)
2. Please provide any comments on the visual design or informational structure that you feel particularly help or hinder use of the technique.
3. Please provide any suggestions you have for changes to help address any issues raised above.

Understanding

Regarding the full document, please look at the abstract and “status of this document” sections at the top (link).

1. How useful are these sections to you?
2. Recommended improvements or changes?

Please look at the “Introduction to Understanding WCAG 2.0” section.

1. Have you previously read this section?
2. How useful is this section to you?
3. Recommended improvements or changes?

Please look at the “Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria” section.

1. Have you previously read this section?
2. How useful is this section to you?
3. Recommended improvements or changes?

Please look at a specific understanding section (e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html - a representative example).

1. What sections of the techniques document are typically most helpful to you? (do a likert scale with least helpful to most helpful for Intent, Specific benefits, Examples, Related, Techniques and Failures, Key terms)

Please look at the Techniques and Failures section for this page

1. Do you understand the difference between Sufficient and Advisory techniques?
2. Do you understand why there is a situation A and Situation B in the list of sufficient techniques?
3. Do you understand why there is an “AND” in #6 under situation A?

1. Please provide any comments on the visual design or informational structure that you feel particularly help or hinder use of the techniques documents.
2. Please provide any suggestions you have for changes to help address any issues raised above.

How to Meet WCAG 2.0

This page is designed as a customizable quick reference for the WCAG 2.0 requirements and techniques.

1. Have you used this resource before?

Regarding the Introduction, About the Techniques, and New Techniques and Comments section

1. Have you previously read this section?
2. How useful is this section to you?
3. Recommended improvements or changes?

Regarding the customization of this resource

1. When customizing the resource to show only a specific technology, such as CSS, general techniques are also included. Do you like this? Comment?
2. When customizing the resource would you want to be able to view only failures (e.g. separate failures from sufficient techniques in the checkbox list?)
3. Would you ever have a use for the ability to share a link that includes specific customizations?
4. Any additional comments regarding the customization of this resource?

1. Please provide any comments on the visual design or informational structure that you feel particularly help or hinder use of the technique.
2. Please provide any suggestions you have for changes to help address any issues raised above.

Comments

1. Are there any other ideas or suggestions that you have that would make implementing support for the WCAG 2.0 success criteria easier for you? As the WCAG 2.0 recommendation is stable not changing for the foreseeable future, please focus comments on improvements to the documents discussed in this survey, or to additional resources that you feel might be helpful to create.
2. Do you feel that there is benefit in offering additional features to the documents discussed, such as tagging, commenting, or rating to help share further information on these resources? Please comment.

Follow Up

1. If you are willing for the Working Group to contact you regarding your responses or are interested in assisting in the process to improve these document, please provide a contact email address.
2. If you are interested in assisting, please indicate how you think you can help.