W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Making Content Usable Wide Review

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2020-04-26 to 2020-05-13.

7 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Support COGA
  2. Audience
  3. Overall Structure
  4. Design Guide
  5. Relationship to WCAG
  6. Impact on Existing Documentation
  7. Wide Review

1. Support COGA

Does this document help support accessibility for people with cognitive and learning disabilities?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 6
Yes, with the following changes 1
No, for the following reasons

Details

Responder Support COGAComments
Lisa Seeman-Horwitz Yes
Patrick Lauke Yes
Laura Carlson Yes
Andrew Kirkpatrick Yes
Bruce Bailey Yes, with the following changes Yes, if most suggestions offered by David MacDonald are incorporated.

Note, I reviewed this version:
https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/responces-to-cfc-april-2020/content-usable/index.html

Seems to be quite similar, but not identical to, this version:
https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/changes-after-0327/content-usable/index.html

I think maybe we should wait for the Editors draft to show the 5 May date, which would be this URL:
https://w3c.github.io/coga/content-usable

I do not believe the differences are substantive enough to change my comments in this survey.
David MacDonald Yes
David Fazio Yes

2. Audience

Is this document relevant for web developers and designers?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 6
Yes, with the following changes 1
No, for the following reasons

Details

Responder AudienceComments
Lisa Seeman-Horwitz Yes
Patrick Lauke Yes
Laura Carlson Yes
Andrew Kirkpatrick Yes
Bruce Bailey Yes, with the following changes The abstract asserts to include "advice for policy makers" who, as a general rule, are neither web developers nor designers. I would like to see the intended audience clarified.
David MacDonald Yes
David Fazio Yes

3. Overall Structure

Is the overall structure and purpose of the document clear and useful?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 4
Yes, with the following changes 3
No, for the following reasons

Details

Responder Overall StructureComments
Lisa Seeman-Horwitz Yes
Patrick Lauke Yes
Laura Carlson Yes, with the following changes The title of the policy appendix seem prescriptive. Suggest changing "Appendix: Guidance for Policy Makers" to something such as "Considerations for People Involved in Policy Making" And restating that this advice is not normative.
Andrew Kirkpatrick Yes
Bruce Bailey Yes, with the following changes Glad to see "successful examples" replacing "sufficient examples".
I agree with David that "failure examples" should not use word "failure" since they are not "failure techniques" and it is too easy to confuse those.
David MacDonald Yes, with the following changes For each pattern there is a "Success" example and a "Failure" example.

I don't think we should have a "failure" example.
Instead call it "unsuccessful"

Success Example: Blah blah
Unsuccessful example: Blah blah

Rationale: it will be confused with a failure of WCAG. An author can't "fail" a note suggestion.
David Fazio Yes

4. Design Guide

Reviewing the guidance and advice given, does it seem clear and useful?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 4
Yes, with the following changes 2
No, for the following reasons

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Design GuideComments
Lisa Seeman-Horwitz Yes
Patrick Lauke Yes
Laura Carlson Yes
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Bruce Bailey Yes, with the following changes I agree with suggestions offered by David.
In general, the author CAUSING the barrier is different than the author CONTRIBUTING to the barrier.
David MacDonald Yes, with the following changes Here are some suggested edits, its a long document (over 200 pages printed) and I haven't reviewed it all yet:
======
CURRENT
... It gives advice on how to make content usable for people with learning and cognitive disabilities. ...

SUGGESTED
It gives advice on how to make content <add>more</add> usable for people with learning and cognitive disabilities.
=======
CURRENT
People with cognitive disabilities often use add-ons or extensions as assistive technology.

SUGGESTED
People with cognitive disabilities <remove>often<remove> <add>may</add> use add-ons or extensions as assistive technology.
======
CURRENT
People with cognitive and learning disabilities may not be able to effectively use web content because of the design and content choices of the author.

SUGGESTED
Design and content choices can impact usage in ways that make it difficult or impossible for some people with cognitive and learning disabilities.
=====
CURRENT
However, for users with cognitive and learning disabilities, these difficulties are likely to be persistent and significant, so that they are unable to access content and may be forced to abandon tasks, without any way to complete them unaided.

SUGGESTED
However, for users with cognitive and learning disabilities, these difficulties are likely to be persistent and significant, so that they may not be able to complete some of these tasks unaided.
======
CURRENT
People may also experience a co-occurrence of difficulties such as dyspraxia / developmental coordination difficulties and ADHD should also be taken into account.

SUGGESTED
People may also experience a co-occurrence of difficulties such as dyspraxia / developmental coordination difficulties. People with ADHD may also be helped by some of these techniques.
======
CURRENT
Accessibility has traditionally focused on the making the user interface usable for people with sensory and physical impairments in vision, hearing and/or mobility. Some accessibility features that help these user groups also help people with cognitive impairments. People with cognitive and learning disabilities also need improvements to context, language, usability, and other more general factors that impact everyone to some degree. As a result, they do not fit well into traditional accessibility standards.

SUGGESTED
There have been difficulties including requirements for people with cognitive disabilities in accessibility standards for the following reasons:
(1) Large variance of individual needs in multiple sub categories of user groups
(2) Lack of mature assistive technology for the consumption of web content by people with cognitive disabilities
(3) Lack of peer reviewed research for users with cognitive disabilities using the web
(4) Difficult to establish consistent test results from manual and/or automated evaluation
(4) Difficult to identify solutions that scale across technologies in multiple languages.
(5) People with cognitive and learning disabilities need improvements to context, language, usability, and other more general factors that impact everyone to some degree, and its difficult to measure the degree of disproportionate usability by people with cognitive disabilities and to test for these things.

As a result, some of the needs of people with cognitive disabilities do not fit well into accessibility standards. In WCAG 2 and 2.1 there are many Success Criteria that help people with cognitive disabilities but there are also some gaps due to the reasons above.

============

RATIONALE: I don't think we should compare disabilities against one another. It may be perceived as divisive by people in those groups.

See https://www.davidmacd.com/blog/wcag-for-low-vision-cognitive-disabilities.html for a list of things in WCAG 2.x that may help some people with Cognitive disabilities.
========


David Fazio Yes

5. Relationship to WCAG

Is the relationship of this informative guidance to WCAG normative guidance clear?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 1
Yes with the addition of the following to the abstract: "It can be considered a supplement to the WCAG accessibility guidelines." 2
Yes, with the following changes
No, for the following reasons 4

Details

Responder Relationship to WCAGComments
Lisa Seeman-Horwitz Yes with the addition of the following to the abstract: "It can be considered a supplement to the WCAG accessibility guidelines." Note we have a version with clarifications at https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/responces-to-cfc-april-2020/content-usable/index.html
Patrick Lauke Yes with the addition of the following to the abstract: "It can be considered a supplement to the WCAG accessibility guidelines."
Laura Carlson No, for the following reasons Agree with David MacDonald's comments.
Andrew Kirkpatrick No, for the following reasons This needs to be clarified substantially.
Bruce Bailey No, for the following reasons I would like the prose to be clear that this document is not an extension to WCAG, at least not as that concept/term was used previously.

I find no reason to even mention WCAG in the abstract portion. It is not a supplement, and should be written as stand-alone document. The WCAG references in the main body content were fine as far as I could tell. But the many references to WCAG in the appendices need close review. For the FCPWD, my recommendation is that the appendices not be included directly.
David MacDonald No, for the following reasons I think we need to do a few things so that these recommendations don't become conflated with WCAG Requirements

1) Add a sentence near the top (probably in the status) something like, "This note is intended as helpful advice rather than an extension to WCAG requirements. Specifically, WCAG as a standard is independent of the suggestions in this document and this document has no impact on WCAG conformance.
2) In the "objective" sections, I don't think we should have links to Github WCAG pull requests and issues with all the comments and internal disagreements, etc... maybe move these SC proposals out.
3) There is a list of about 35 Success Criteria that were not included in WCAG 2.1 because they didn't meet WCAG acceptance criteria. I think these may need some sort of qualifier.
4) The table in "Guidance for policy makers" has WCAG Success Criteria acceptance characteristics status for these above 35 SCs which basically says every one of the SCs meets every one of the acceptance Criteria we had for 2.1. I suggest this table would need a full revision before inclusion https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/changes-after-0327/content-usable/index.html#appendix-guidance-for-policy-makers
David Fazio Yes

6. Impact on Existing Documentation

Does this document alter or conflict with existing W3C recommendations or policies?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 2
Yes, with the following changes 2
No, for the following reasons 3

Details

Responder Impact on Existing DocumentationComments
Lisa Seeman-Horwitz No, for the following reasons
Patrick Lauke No, for the following reasons Ideally, following on from point 6 Relationship to WCAG, this document should further clarify that it may go beyond what WCAG normatively requires, but that it is additive / on top of WCAG.
Laura Carlson Yes, with the following changes The document should clarify that it may go beyond what WCAG normatively requires.
Andrew Kirkpatrick Yes Section on advice for policy makers is problematic.
Bruce Bailey Yes FWIW, the survey choices for this question do not quite make sense to me.

Recommend deleting Appendix C unless it radically updated.
Editors note currently reads: "This table needs to be updated and needs further review". I agree. It is too rough to go out as FCPWD.
https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/responces-to-cfc-april-2020/content-usable/index.html#h-ednote-1

At the very least, four of the five columns are not variable. Those four columns of data could/should be a bullet list!
David MacDonald Yes, with the following changes think we need to:
1) Make edits listed above.
2) provide clear language that states the relationship with WCAG up front that it doesn't add to the requirements WCAG
3) Remove links to WCAG Github issues and pull requests
4) remove or amend the table which says all the previously unaccepted WCAG SCs meet all the SC Acceptance criteria
5) Change titles of "Failure Example" to "Unsuccessful Example"
David Fazio No, for the following reasons It clearly bridges a gap

7. Wide Review

While it is not part of the note process, COGA would like to open this document to a wider public review before we finalize it. Are you comfortable with this document moving forward to a wide review under the banner of the Working Group?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes, move to wide review 3
Yes, with the following changes 3
No, for the following reasons 1

Details

Responder Wide ReviewComments
Lisa Seeman-Horwitz Yes, move to wide review
Patrick Lauke Yes, move to wide review
Laura Carlson Yes, with the following changes Agree to move to wide review after the Working Group's comments have been addressed.
Andrew Kirkpatrick Yes, with the following changes Clarification of relationship to WCAG
Discussion of guidance to policy makers appendix
Bruce Bailey No, for the following reasons I would like to see this document under wider public review under the banner of the coga task force.
David MacDonald Yes, with the following changes I think it needs a full editorial pass as mentioned above.
David Fazio Yes, move to wide review

More details on responses

  • Lisa Seeman-Horwitz: last responded on 1, May 2020 at 05:36 (UTC)
  • Patrick Lauke: last responded on 3, May 2020 at 21:59 (UTC)
  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 4, May 2020 at 19:34 (UTC)
  • Andrew Kirkpatrick: last responded on 5, May 2020 at 15:22 (UTC)
  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 5, May 2020 at 20:07 (UTC)
  • David MacDonald: last responded on 6, May 2020 at 17:46 (UTC)
  • David Fazio: last responded on 13, May 2020 at 18:21 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Gregg Vanderheiden
  2. Chris Wilson
  3. Janina Sajka
  4. Shawn Lawton Henry
  5. Katie Haritos-Shea
  6. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  7. Chus Garcia
  8. Steve Faulkner
  9. Gez Lemon
  10. Makoto Ueki
  11. Peter Korn
  12. Preety Kumar
  13. Georgios Grigoriadis
  14. Stefan Schnabel
  15. Romain Deltour
  16. Chris Blouch
  17. Jedi Lin
  18. Jeanne F Spellman
  19. Wilco Fiers
  20. Kimberly Patch
  21. Glenda Sims
  22. Ian Pouncey
  23. Alastair Campbell
  24. Léonie Watson
  25. David Sloan
  26. Mary Jo Mueller
  27. John Kirkwood
  28. Detlev Fischer
  29. Reinaldo Ferraz
  30. Matt Garrish
  31. Mike Gifford
  32. Loïc Martínez Normand
  33. Mike Pluke
  34. Justine Pascalides
  35. Chris Loiselle
  36. Tzviya Siegman
  37. Jan McSorley
  38. Sailesh Panchang
  39. Cristina Mussinelli
  40. Jonathan Avila
  41. John Rochford
  42. Sarah Horton
  43. Sujasree Kurapati
  44. Jatin Vaishnav
  45. Sam Ogami
  46. Kevin White
  47. E.A. Draffan
  48. Paul Bohman
  49. JaEun Jemma Ku
  50. 骅 杨
  51. Victoria Clark
  52. Avneesh Singh
  53. Mitchell Evan
  54. Michael Gower
  55. biao liu
  56. Scott McCormack
  57. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  58. Francis Storr
  59. Rick Johnson
  60. David Swallow
  61. Aparna Pasi
  62. Gregorio Pellegrino
  63. Melanie Philipp
  64. Jake Abma
  65. Nicole Windmann
  66. Oliver Keim
  67. Gundula Niemann
  68. Ruoxi Ran
  69. Wendy Reid
  70. Scott O'Hara
  71. Charles Adams
  72. Muhammad Saleem
  73. Amani Ali
  74. Trevor Bostic
  75. Jamie Herrera
  76. Shinya Takami
  77. Karen Herr
  78. Kathy Eng
  79. Cybele Sack
  80. Audrey Maniez
  81. Jennifer Delisi
  82. Arthur Soroken
  83. Daniel Bjorge
  84. Kai Recke
  85. Daniel Montalvo
  86. Mario Chacón-Rivas
  87. Michael Gilbert
  88. Caryn Pagel
  89. Achraf Othman
  90. Helen Burge
  91. Fernanda Bonnin
  92. Jared Batterman
  93. Raja Kushalnagar
  94. Jan Williams
  95. Todd Libby
  96. Isabel Holdsworth
  97. Julia Chen
  98. Marcos Franco Murillo
  99. Yutaka Suzuki
  100. Azlan Cuttilan
  101. Jennifer Strickland
  102. Joe Humbert
  103. Ben Tillyer
  104. Charu Pandhi
  105. Poornima Badhan Subramanian
  106. Alain Vagner
  107. Roberto Scano
  108. Rain Breaw Michaels
  109. Kun Zhang
  110. Jaunita George
  111. Regina Sanchez
  112. Shawn Thompson
  113. Thomas Brunet
  114. Kenny Dunsin
  115. Jen Goulden
  116. Mike Beganyi
  117. Ronny Hendriks
  118. Olivia Hogan-Stark
  119. Rashmi Katakwar
  120. Julie Rawe
  121. Duff Johnson
  122. Laura Miller
  123. Will Creedle
  124. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  125. Marie Csanady
  126. Meenakshi Das
  127. Perrin Anto
  128. Rachele DiTullio
  129. Jan Jaap de Groot
  130. Rebecca Monteleone
  131. Ian Kersey
  132. Peter Bossley
  133. Anastasia Lanz
  134. Michael Keane
  135. Chiara De Martin
  136. Giacomo Petri
  137. Andrew Barakat
  138. Devanshu Chandra
  139. Xiao (Helen) Zhou
  140. Joe Lamyman
  141. Bryan Trogdon
  142. Mary Ann (MJ) Jawili
  143. 禹佳 陶
  144. 锦澄 王
  145. Stephen James
  146. Jay Mullen
  147. Thorsten Katzmann
  148. Tony Holland
  149. Kent Boucher
  150. Abbey Davis
  151. Phil Day
  152. Julia Kim
  153. Michelle Lana
  154. David Williams
  155. Mikayla Thompson
  156. Catherine Droege
  157. James Edwards
  158. Eric Hind
  159. Quintin Balsdon
  160. Mario Batušić
  161. David Cox
  162. Sazzad Mahamud
  163. Katy Brickley
  164. Kimberly Sarabia
  165. Corey Hinshaw
  166. Ashley Firth
  167. Daniel Harper-Wain
  168. Kiara Stewart
  169. DJ Chase
  170. Suji Sreerama
  171. Lori Oakley
  172. David Middleton
  173. Alyssa Priddy
  174. Young Choi
  175. Nichole Bui
  176. Julie Romanowski
  177. Eloisa Guerrero
  178. Daniel Henderson-Ede
  179. George Kuan
  180. YAPING LIN
  181. Justin Wilson
  182. Leonard Beasley
  183. Tiffany Burtin
  184. Shane Dittmar
  185. Nayan Padrai
  186. Niamh Kelly
  187. Matt Argomaniz Matthew Argomaniz
  188. Frankie Wolf
  189. Kimberly McGee
  190. Ahson Rana
  191. Carolina Crespo
  192. humor927 humor927
  193. Samantha McDaniel
  194. Matthäus Rojek
  195. Phong Tony Le
  196. Bram Janssens
  197. Graham Ritchie
  198. Aleksandar Cindrikj
  199. Jeroen Hulscher
  200. Alina Vayntrub
  201. Marco Sabidussi
  202. John Toles
  203. Jeanne Erickson Cooley
  204. Theo Hale
  205. Gert-Jan Vercauteren
  206. Karla Rubiano
  207. Aashutosh K
  208. Hidde de Vries
  209. Julian Kittelson-Aldred
  210. Roland Buss
  211. Aditya Surendranath
  212. Avon Kuo
  213. Elizabeth Patrick
  214. Tj Squires
  215. Nat Tarnoff
  216. Illai Zeevi
  217. Filippo Zorzi
  218. Gleidson Ramos
  219. Mike Pedersen
  220. Rachael Yomtoob
  221. Oliver Habersetzer
  222. Irfan Mukhtar

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 w3c/wbs-design or by mail to sysreq.