W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire WCAG 3.0 Explainer

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2021-05-13 to 2021-05-18.

12 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Do you approve of the WCAG 3.0 Explainer?

1. Do you approve of the WCAG 3.0 Explainer?

Please review the editor's draft of the WCAG 3.0 Explainer, which can be found at the following link:

Explainer for W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0

The explainer document can be updated iteratively in the future, so recommended improvements are welcome but should not hold up the initial publication.

Do you:

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer	6
Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer with recommended alterations (please note those in comments)	5
Something else	1

Details

Responder	Do you approve of the WCAG 3.0 Explainer?	Comments
Justine Pascalides	Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer with recommended alterations (please note those in comments)	(1) In the Status of This Document section, suggest using the agreed upon wording to refer to document status which I believe was "It is informative (non-normative)..." Do the same for the reference to non-normative information in 2.1 Background on WCAG 3.0 and any other instances that appear. (2) 5.1.2.1 Critical Errors - a comment that I'd hope any critical error would result in non-conformance (i.e., that a site or app could not demonstrate Bronze level conformance if a critical error is present). Also a comment that user needs are so widely varied particularly related to individuals with cognitive disabilities that it may not be possible to address nuanced individual needs that could stop someone from completing a process. Can we target common user needs for the scope of critical errors? (3) 5.2.3 Functional categories - fix typo "criterial" in the second paragraph
Karen Herr	Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer
John Foliot	Something else	Abstain from voting at this time. I do note however that the images in the draft are not rendering in my view.
Laura Carlson	Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer
Chris Loiselle	Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer with recommended alterations (please note those in comments)	1) Image sources are not present in documentation. 2) Should the "References" section be called an Appendix ? If so, then the "<h3 id="a-1-informative-references">" within the appendix could be called Informative References , rather than references being used as the parent sectioning h2 name and in the child name of the h3 noted as informative references.
Jeanne F Spellman	Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer	It's an early draft and needs editing, but I think it is a positive direction.
Charles Adams	Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer
Alastair Campbell	Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer with recommended alterations (please note those in comments)	Not blockers, suggestions: Introduction, 2nd paragraph which starts "When it is published, WCAG 3.0 will provide many ways for making the web and other digital content (like video or mobile web apps) more accessible to people with disabilities." Blockers but probably in hand: - Figure 1, 2 (and probably any others) are missing, broken URLs. - The definitions need attaching / correcting, all appear to be red-underlined at the moment.
Michael Gower	Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer with recommended alterations (please note those in comments)	I tried making a separate branch to record some non-substantive editorial changes, but could not locate this specific version, so skipping those. 'Goals for Content' and Conformance sections contains statements that are not goals (e.g., "The information structure allows guidance to be added or removed.") They should be written as goals. Figure 1 Core Structure is missing (actually, all figures are missing -- and missing ALT text) 5.1.2.1 Critical errors Shouldn't the idea of 'doing harm' be a consideration? 5.2.1 How tos First, I think it reads better as "How to's". Second the second paragraph should really be partially constructed as a list. it would make the information more consumable. 5.2.2 Functional needs "The development..." Is it really development? It would probably be better just as "WCAG 3 guidelines start with fuctonal needs". This section seems a bit less mature than others. 5.2.3 Functional categories First sentence awkward. Typo "criterial" The European spec is usually capitalize "EN" 5.3 How conformance "Guidelines are general information and intent written in plain language" really needs a comma: "Guidelines are general information and intent, written in plain language" Change WCAG 2.1. reference to 2.2 5.4 Selecting... Previously I saw 'process'. Now 'workflow' makes first appearance in document. Synonyms? A side comment: After Friday's discussion, I am of the opinion that Silver is going to have to cover _reporting_ as part of its Goals for Conformance. I do not see how several of its goals can be achieved without transparency from the content owners, not just on outcomes but on workflow/process selection and subset testing parameters.
Ben Tillyer	Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer
Bruce Bailey	Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer with recommended alterations (please note those in comments)	I don't think the Plain Language Summaries should be hidden by an accordion. From: https://w3c.github.io/silver/explainer/index.html#outcomes-structure > Example: Convey hierarchy with semantic structure This is an instruction. It is NOT "written as testable criteria". This example IMHO should be: > Example: Hierarchy is conveyed with semantic structure And it maybe it should even be: > Example: Any hierarchy implied through presentation is conveyed with semantic structure Since not all digital content has hierarchy. From: https://w3c.github.io/silver/explainer/index.html#critical-errors > Evaluating processes requires counting critical errors... Why would I need to count? The line above is: > Any critical errors will result in the lowest score for the outcome. Could/should that line be: > Evaluating processes requires identification of any critical errors... ? From: https://w3c.github.io/silver/explainer/index.html#outcome-rating > Each outcome is rated on a scale of 0 to 4. The rating model is designed to be flexible in order to allow more functional needs of people with disabilities to be included in the guidelines. I do not agree that this is the primary virtue of integer scoring. The "more functional needs" is important, but I think that explanation belongs elsewhere (sorry, but i am not sure where). This is my suggested replacement for these two sentences: > Each outcome is rated on an INTEGER scale of 0 to 4. This rating model is designed facilitate mapping to adjectival rating scale. Adjectival ratings provide flexibility and facilitate translation into other languages. The methods that inform the outcome rating might (or might not) use fractional or decimal scoring.
John Kirkwood	Approve the WCAG 3.0 Explainer	Approv a an early draft and as noted it needs editing, but is a right direction.