W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire WCAG 3.0 Explainer for August Heartbeat Publication

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2021-06-17 to 2021-06-22.

13 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Review additional goal of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion"
Do you approve of including the WCAG 3.0 Explainer in the August Heartbeat Release?

1. Review additional goal of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion"

A suggestion was made to include an additional goal of "Diversity, Equity And Inclusion" into the Explainer. The goals can be viewed at the following link:

Explainer for W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0

Do you:

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Approve of the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal	1
Approve of the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal, with modifications (please note in comments)	2
Something Else (please note in comments)	6
Do not include the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal	4

Details

Responder	Review additional goal of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion"
Wilco Fiers	Something Else (please note in comments)	I'm not clear on what is being proposed. I'd like to see the actual proposal, not just the heading.
Stefan Schnabel	Something Else (please note in comments)	Accessibility is the OUTCOME/RESULT/TECHNICAL REALIZATION of the goal Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. A master W3C document "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and what W3C does for it by having the following goals" would be a reference to be mentioned instead.
Gundula Niemann	Do not include the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal	Diversity, Equity, Inclusion is a far wider goal than Accessibility, therefor a full Accessibility does contribute, but not reach Diversity, Equity, Inclusion. Therefore I object.
Laura Carlson	Something Else (please note in comments)	I'm not clear on what is being proposed. I'd like to see the actual proposal, not just the heading.
David MacDonald	Something Else (please note in comments)	> Set goals for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion. Include a goal for more recruiting of younger accessibility experts. I would like to be careful that diversity takes into account "ageism" which is a prejudice against people who are older. One silver member approached me outside a face to face meeting and said "you're kind of old, maybe you should leave accessibility standards to younger people." "recruiting younger accessibility experts" triggers that conversation in my mind a bit. There are strengths and weakness in every age group, so we need them all. Do we need to call out specific groups? There are probably a dozen other groups we could include in the document once we start down the road of naming groups we want adequately represented.
Jeanne F Spellman	Do not include the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal	While I think this is a really important goal, as it is current phrased it seems like window-dressing. Because real diversity, equity and inclusion would require substantial changes in both the way we recruit and the culture and tooling that we work in, I don't think we should add this goal. I recommend that we form a group to study the issue and recommend specific changes that we could incorporate into the WCAG3 Requirements.
Makoto Ueki	Something Else (please note in comments)	Maybe I missed the background on "Include a goal for more recruiting of younger accessibility experts." But I don't think age matters.
Rain Breaw Michaels	Approve of the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal
Charles Adams	Do not include the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal
Sarah Horton	Do not include the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal	The goal is not well defined, and it's difficult to spot what it's responding to in the design principles. That said, accessibility guidelines creation would absolutely benefit from more “collective wisdom,” with more engagement and participation and diverse perspectives. Diversity, equity, and inclusion goals would help make that happen. Perhaps a small group could work in defining and articulating the goal more clearly?
Jennifer Strickland	Approve of the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal, with modifications (please note in comments)	Actively recruit a diverse range of people with disabilities in recognition of 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. By diverse, we mean a range of lived experiences of disabilities, socio-economics (occupational status, educational attainment, poverty), gender, ethnicity, nations of residence and origin, language, and other historically marginalized perspectives. Facilitate global participation and feedback, by meeting people where they are, through a range of feedback vehicles. Set goals for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Include a goal for more recruiting of younger accessibility experts.
Bruce Bailey	Approve of the addition of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" as a goal, with modifications (please note in comments)	Editorial suggestion: Second and third bullet do NOT include a rationalization/explanation. It struct me as odd that the first bullet did. I think: > Actively recruit a diverse range of people with disabilities in recognition of 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. Could/should just be: > Actively recruit a diverse range of people with disabilities. Review and monitor whether people are included. Continually evaluate inclusive features of available tooling and procedures.
Michael Gower	Something Else (please note in comments)	"Continually evaluate inclusive features of available tooling and procedures." That seems unrealistic. May want to qualify it, so things aren't set up to fail. "Set goals for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion. Include a goal for more recruiting of younger accessibility experts" This gave me pause. Why younger? Why not "...a broader range of ages"? We don't really have many older participants either, especially given the statistical likelihood they will have more interesting combinations of considerations. Why experts? Do you mean professionals? I think it's not bad to distinguish between users and people working in the field, and I guess we do use the term "invited expert", so probably okay

2. Do you approve of including the WCAG 3.0 Explainer in the August Heartbeat Release?

Do you:

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer	4
Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer with recommended alterations (please note those in comments)	3
Something else	4

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

Details

Responder	Do you approve of including the WCAG 3.0 Explainer in the August Heartbeat Release?	Comments
Wilco Fiers	Something else	I think the explainer is far too long, and goes into too much detail. I'd rather see a trimmed down version of this document. The best explainers, in my opinion, are ones that in 2 minutes of reading give a rough idea of what to expect from the larger document. The explainer proposed for WCAG 3 almost seems more like background information, then an actual explainer. I would like to either see this document trimmed down substantially, or have it renamed and a separate, much shorter explainer be created.
Stefan Schnabel	Something else	I don't approve until 2. has been clarified
Gundula Niemann
Laura Carlson	Something else	After #2 has been decided.
David MacDonald		Consider removing this until we've had a "detailed discussion" > "Remove “accessibility supported” as an author responsibility, and help developers of authoring tools, browsers, and assistive technologies learn the behaviors that users expect of their products. Note: This requires more detailed discussion in AGWG. It does not yet have consensus. " I think working draft content is where we go to the public with content that we are reasonably sure we want to go forward with as a group, not to have the public arbitrate lack of consensus. > Evaluating processes requires counting critical errors that occur within the process and associated views . I think we need a thorough discussion about "counting" before going public with it. How about the following: > Evaluating processes requires <add>documenting</add> critical errors that occur within the process and associated views .
Jeanne F Spellman	Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer with recommended alterations (please note those in comments)	We also proposed adding a goal that the Conformance be easier to test than we currently have in WCAG2. I don't think it is realistic. I don't want to add that goal.
Makoto Ueki	Something else	> 3.3 Goals for Conformance > Remove “accessibility supported” as an author responsibility, and help developers of authoring tools, browsers, and assistive technologies learn the behaviors that users expect of their products. If we will remove it, we must secure that we will provide the guidance for developers of authoring tools, browsers, and assistive technologies on how they can support HTML, JavaScript and any other technologies covered by WCAG 3. Otherwise they don't know what to do and how to do. I'd say "Techniques for WCAG 2.0" was a set of "JAWS-based" sufficient techniques. For instance, we have very popular Japanese screen reader in Japan and it lacks support for HTML/WAI-ARIA when compared to JAWS. That was why we needed the concept of "accessibility-supported" when we developed WCAG 2.0. There were many sufficient techniques which didn't work with the Japanese screen readers. In Japan, we had to determine if each technique was "accessibility- supported" or not. So we created a set of test files based on "Techniques for WCAG 2.0" and tested them with various Japanese user agents"
Rain Breaw Michaels	Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer
Charles Adams	Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer
Sarah Horton	Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer with recommended alterations (please note those in comments)	The explainer is helpful and should be included, but it would be more effective with significant editing and restructuring.
Jennifer Strickland	Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer
Bruce Bailey	Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer
Michael Gower	Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer with recommended alterations (please note those in comments)	"Think about what is the person trying to do." should be "Think about what the person is trying to do." It's confusing to have "5.1 Structure of these guidelines This section is non-normative." when that is not included in other sections. I assume the whole Explainer is non-normative, so suggest these be removed "measureability" Lose the second "e" Accessibility supported has a separate issue to address, I think, right?