w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire UAWG Writers' Meeting followup #1
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email addresses: w3c-archive@w3.org, jeanne@w3.org
This questionnaire was open from 2010-08-02 to 2010-08-27.
4 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Proposal to delete 1.1 and 1.2
- Proposal for 1.4.1 Follow Specifications
- Proposal for 1.4.2 Handle Unrendered Technologies
- Proposal for [new SC] 1.4.3 Alternative content handlers
- Proposal for 3.1.3 Browse and Render
1. Proposal to delete 1.1 and 1.2
Eliminate 1.1 and 1.2. The Success criteria for 1.3 and 5.3 cover the same material and intention. See the proposed Intent, Examples and Resources for 1.3
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Accept the proposal | 2 |
| Recommend changes (see comments field) | 1 |
| The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | 1 |
| Disagree with the proposal | |
| Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Details
| Responder | Proposal to delete 1.1 and 1.2 | Comments 1.1 and 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan Richards | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | I don't see how 1.3 and 5.3 cover these. 1.1 and 1.2 are analagous to A.1.1 and A.1.2 in ATAG 2.0 which is intened to cover lots of general software accessibility items. On the other hand, UUAG 2.0 has more requirements that might be considered "general software accessibility" than ATAG does, so the document as a whole might make 1.1 and 1.2 unnecessary. But that needs discussion. |
| Kimberly Patch | Accept the proposal | |
| Greg Lowney | Recommend changes (see comments field) | I agree that 1.1 and 1.2 in principle, but I think that somewhere we should clearly state that UA UI should comply with WCAG if implemented using a WCAG-compatible technology (which was the goal of 1.2). Perhaps in the Intent or Examples for 1.3. |
| Kelly Ford | Accept the proposal |
2. Proposal for 1.4.1 Follow Specifications
See 1.4.1 Follow Specifications Intent, Examples and Related Resources.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Accept the proposal | 2 |
| Recommend changes (see comments field) | 1 |
| The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | |
| Disagree with the proposal | |
| Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Proposal for 1.4.1 Follow Specifications | Comments 1.4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan Richards | Recommend changes (see comments field) | The informative note seems very relevant to the normative SC...I suggest moving it to the guidelines. |
| Kimberly Patch | Accept the proposal | |
| Greg Lowney | Accept the proposal | |
| Kelly Ford |
3. Proposal for 1.4.2 Handle Unrendered Technologies
See 1.4.2 Handle Unrendered Technologies Intent, Examples and Related Resources.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Accept the proposal | 3 |
| Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
| The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | |
| Disagree with the proposal | |
| Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Proposal for 1.4.2 Handle Unrendered Technologies | Comments 1.4.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | maybe "fashions" => "ways" |
| Kimberly Patch | Accept the proposal | wordsmithing: needs to => should |
| Greg Lowney | Accept the proposal | |
| Kelly Ford |
4. Proposal for [new SC] 1.4.3 Alternative content handlers
See 1.4.3 Alternative content handlers New Success Criteria, Intent, Examples and Related Resources.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Accept the proposal | 2 |
| Recommend changes (see comments field) | 1 |
| The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | |
| Disagree with the proposal | |
| Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Proposal for [new SC] 1.4.3 Alternative content handlers | Comments 1.4.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | "build-in" => "built-in" |
| Kimberly Patch | Accept the proposal | wordsmithing: viewer passing => viewer, passing |
| Greg Lowney | Recommend changes (see comments field) | Accept but correct the accidental duplication by removing the first sentence starting with "The browser", and adding period at the end of the last sentence. |
| Kelly Ford |
5. Proposal for 3.1.3 Browse and Render
See 3.1.3 Browse and Render Intent, Examples and Related Resources.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Accept the proposal | 2 |
| Recommend changes (see comments field) | 1 |
| The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | |
| Disagree with the proposal | |
| Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Proposal for 3.1.3 Browse and Render | Comments 3.1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | |
| Kimberly Patch | Accept the proposal | |
| Greg Lowney | Recommend changes (see comments field) | Just a very minor editorial suggestion: because the phrase "non-time-based media" is so cumbersome and foreign to many readers, it might help to put the meaningful examples in the main sentence and the technical term in the parentheses. For example reword Intent b from "There are times when a user cannot gain meaningful information from a non-time-based media element (images, charts, graphs, etc.)" to "There are times when a user cannot gain meaningful information from images, charts, graphs, etc. (non-time-based media element)." and similarly for Intent a. |
| Kelly Ford |
More details on responses
- Jan Richards: last responded on 5, August 2010 at 14:51 (UTC)
- Kimberly Patch: last responded on 5, August 2010 at 15:55 (UTC)
- Greg Lowney: last responded on 12, August 2010 at 17:12 (UTC)
- Kelly Ford: last responded on 12, August 2010 at 17:12 (UTC)
Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.
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