W3C

Results of Questionnaire Silver Requirements Update

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2019-04-11 to 2019-05-01.

17 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Design Principles
  2. Requirements

1. Design Principles

The Silver Design Principles are based on the requirements of WCAG 2.0 and build on those requirements to meet needs identified in the Silver research.

Accessibility guidelines should:

  1. Support the needs of a wide range of people with disabilities and recognize that people have individual and multiple needs.
  2. Support a measurement and conformance structure that includes guidance for a broad range of disabilities. This includes particular attention to the needs of low vision and cognitive accessibility.
  3. Be flexible enough to support the needs of people with disabilities and keep up with emerging technologies. The information structure allows guidance to be added or removed.
  4. Be accessible and conform to the Guidelines.Note: This design principle will move to the Requirements section once the Conformance section is completed and we determine a specific measurement of compliance..
  5. Be written in plain language, as easy as possible to understand. We need a definition of plain language that includes the easy of translation. Ideally, it will be a broadly accepted definition internationally.

The creation process for the guidelines should:

  1. Actively recruit a diverse range of people with disabilities to recognize the importance of their contributions to accessibility standards and solutions. Review and monitor whether people are included. Continually evaluate inclusive features of available tooling and procedures.
  2. Facilitate global participation and feedback.
  3. Be data-informed and evidence-based, recognizing that research may be limited or have small sample sizes. Research results for large groups of people with disabilities should not override the needs of smaller groups. When in doubt, see Design Principle 1. The intent is to make informed decisions wherever possible. For example, new Methods submitted by the public could require user research test results.
  4. [new] Be written so the Guideline content is used in adaptable and customizable ways. For example, Silver content is available to be extracted by users to adapt to their needs.
  5. [new]Improve the ability to support automated testing where appropriate and provide a procedure for repeatable tests when manual testing is appropriate.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree 11
I can live with them 4
Strong disagreement. Explain in comments.

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Design PrinciplesComments
Wilco Fiers Agree
Jake Abma Agree
Marc Johlic I can live with them DP-2 I still feel weird about calling out two specific disability types: Low Vision and Cognitive. It feels like this is being done to placate (or acknowledge) that internally that we didn't get as much done as we wanted to for those two groups in 2.1. But what does that mean to the person outside of AG WG? The person brand new to accessibility? Someone looking at this 3 years from now. The person who has a disability outside of these two groups? The question will be "Why are these two groups called out specifically for 'particular attention'??"

Or maybe I'm completely missing the reason that these two are being called out specifically (wouldn't be the first time).

I can live with it, but it just feels odd - like we're calling attention to the previous group struggles that we all should be aware of by now and know how to properly act on going forward.
Michael Cooper I can live with them The wording of 5 and 8 are messy. I can live with the principles but need crisper wording.
Bruce Bailey Agree
Kim Dirks Agree
Charles Adams Agree
Laura Carlson I can live with them
Michael Gower I can live with them Trivial typos (issue in square brackets)
Be accessible and conform to the Guidelines[.]Note: This design principle will move to the Requirements section once the 4...Conformance section is completed and we determine a specific measurement of compliance.[.]
Be accessible and conform to the Guidelines. Note: This design principle will move to the Requirements section once the Conformance section is completed and we determine a specific measurement of compliance.

5...We need a definition of plain language that includes [the easy] of translation.
We need a definition of plain language that includes ease of translation.

6... Actively recruit a diverse range of people with disabilities [to recognize] the importance of their contributions to accessibility standards and solutions.

...in recognition of...

9. Be written so the Guideline content is [used] in adaptable...
...usable...

Comment
8 "...Research results for large groups of people with disabilities should not override the needs of smaller groups..."
It's unclear exactly what this means. Is this in regard to conflicting technical implementations? Or to deciding where to focus effort to solve an a11y challenge?
Alastair Campbell Agree Typo in principle 5, should be "ease": "the easy of translation".

Marc - they are called out because they don't tend to fit the pass/fail statement model, which is what this is changing.
Justine Pascalides Agree
Brooks Newton Agree
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Agree
John Kirkwood Agree
David MacDonald Several Sections are not in this survey. Here are general comments:

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
"People with disabilities can face problems using online content and applications. Disabilities can be permanent, temporary, or situational limitations."

I think the phrase "situational limitations" is ambiguous. I don't think we want to write guidelines for people who are disadvantaged because say, there is a lot of sunlight outdoors and its washing out the screen, who otherwise have 20/20 vision. I agree out guidance can help them but I think if we mean "episodic disabilities" then I think we should maybe say that. Or perhaps something like this.
"Disabilities can be permanent, temporary, or an interaction between a physical limitation and a situation."

https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Situational_Limitations_References
It appears that references to situational seem to be almost exclusive ly referring to people who don't have disabilities, but have a situation that benefits from the accommodation (that was initially intended for pwd)
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Jeanne F Spellman Agree

2. Requirements

3.1 Multiple ways to measure

All Silver guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. In addition to the current true/false success criteria, other ways of measuring (for example, rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) are available where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included.

3.2 Flexible maintenance and extensibility

Create a maintenance and extensibility model for guidelines that can better meet the needs of people with disabilities using emerging technologies and interactions. The process of developing the guidance includes experts in the technology.

3.3 Multiple ways to display

Make the guidelines available in different accessible and usable ways or formats so the guidance can be customized by and for different audiences.

3.4 Technology Neutral

Core guidelines are user-centric. Methods are technology-centric. The core guidelines are worded to apply across varied technologies and avoid being technology-specific. The intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to apply the core guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't yet exist. Technical details are discoverable in the Methods but are not required to understand guidelines.

3.5 Readability/Usability

The core guidelines are understandable by a non-technical audience. Text and presentation are usable and understandable through the use of plain language, structure, and design.

3.6 Regulatory Environment

The Guidelines provide broad support, including

  • Structure, methodology, and content that facilitates adoption into law, regulation, or policy, and
  • clear intent and transparency as to purpose and goals, to assist when there are questions or controversy.

3.7 Motivation

The Guidelines motivate organizations to go beyond minimal accessibility requirements by providing a scoring system that rewards organizations which demonstrate a greater effort to improve accessibility.

3.8 Scope

The guidelines provide guidance for people and organizations that produce digital assets and technology of varying size and complexity. Our intent is to provide guidance for a diverse group of stakeholders including content creators, browsers, authoring tools, assistive technologies, and more.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree 9
I can live with them 6
Strong disagreement. Explain in comments.

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder RequirementsComments
Wilco Fiers I can live with them The feedback I've provided to a previous draft of this proposal haven't been answered:
ttps://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/created_by/WilcoFiers

Just on principle, I think it's bad form that the Silver TF is proposing updates without answering feedback that was provided. Github was one of the channels through which feedback was accepted. Even if they had missed it, Detlev had reminded the Taskforce of these issues via e-mail a several months ago.

While I don't see inherent flaws with the proposal, I think some questions that should have been answered aren't. Not the least of which is; Do any of these changes actually require a complete rewrite? And if we do rewrite, how do we avoid the grosley underestimating the work like we saw in WCAG 2, which caused it to be delayed for 7 years?
Jake Abma Agree The requirements are pretty flexible in nature, like "other ways, "where appropriate", "Better meet", "provide broad support"etc.
There are many scenarios I can think of to stretch these words, in general I think requirements may be more restrictive.

Another small issues is "The core guidelines are understandable by a non-technical audience." It depends on what the understanding / definition is for non-technical audience, but in general I do not think they will understand lots of guidelines without a general understanding of techniques.

Marc Johlic Agree
Michael Cooper I can live with them The wording of Technology Neutral is messy but I can live with the basic premise it outlines. In particular, I wonder if we're at at a stage to bake "guidelines" and "methods" into the requirements level, I would have thought not yet, so would like to generalize and simplify the wording of that requirement.
Bruce Bailey Agree
Kim Dirks Agree
Charles Adams Agree
Laura Carlson For 3.1 Multiple ways to measure, "where appropriate" seems wishy-washy. Needs to be defined or there will be lots of disagreements. How is "where appropriate" measured? Requirements that are wishy-washy are not requirements at all. They are judgment calls, subjective to personal opinion.

Suggest moving the second sentence of 3.1 from the requirements section to principles section.
Michael Gower I can live with them "3.3. Multiple ways to display" seems overly prescriptive. Why 'display'? Why not 'present'?
Alastair Campbell I can live with them Re-reading again, I think there are two potential gaps.

1. Methodology.

With a task-based approach and multiple ways of measuring things, the complexity of how you test will increase. Overall it may be easier to do than WCAG 2.x, but knowing how to do it will include more variety, therefore more support will needed.

Where WCAG 2.0 has WCAG-EM (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/), I think Silver will need to build that in. I don't think that can happen on a per-guideline basis, there needs to be guidance on when to apply what.

Under 1.2.2 or the design principles, I'd like to see something like: "Provide support in how to apply conformance across a variety of organisations.".

2. Setting responsibility

Another aspect implicit in WCAG 2.x is the setting of responsibility. Although "accessibility supported" is difficult to work out, it is a mechanism for saying what the author (vs user agent) is responsible for. Given the increase in scope, there needs to something per-guideline that says what the minumum is per conformance level.

Perhaps under 1.2.2's last point: "Authors are not responsible for interoperability problems beyond a reasonable effort.", add something to say that Silver will need to set what the author *is* responsible for.
Justine Pascalides Agree
Brooks Newton Agree
Rachael Bradley Montgomery I can live with them
John Kirkwood Agree
David MacDonald
Andrew Kirkpatrick I can live with them "avoid being technology-specific" needs adjustment to make technology independence a requirement.
Jeanne F Spellman Agree

More details on responses

  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 16, April 2019 at 15:47 (UTC)
  • Michael Gower: last responded on 22, April 2019 at 21:20 (UTC)
  • Alastair Campbell: last responded on 23, April 2019 at 09:05 (UTC)
  • Justine Pascalides: last responded on 23, April 2019 at 12:33 (UTC)
  • Brooks Newton: last responded on 23, April 2019 at 14:12 (UTC)
  • Rachael Bradley Montgomery: last responded on 23, April 2019 at 15:09 (UTC)
  • John Kirkwood: last responded on 23, April 2019 at 15:35 (UTC)
  • David MacDonald: last responded on 23, April 2019 at 15:50 (UTC)
  • Andrew Kirkpatrick: last responded on 23, April 2019 at 15:51 (UTC)
  • Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 24, April 2019 at 13:41 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

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

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