W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Process for WCAG 3.0 (Take 3)

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2021-11-03 to 2021-11-09.

11 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Process approval

1. Process approval

Do you agree to adopt and use the proposed process for developing WCAG 3.0.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Agree	5
Agree with the following changes	6
Disagree for the following reasons

Details

Responder	Process approval	Comments
David MacDonald	Agree
Jeanne F Spellman	Agree with the following changes	Placeholder content is used to inform people that "we are going to work on this, but we haven't yet". I think that 6 months is too short a timeframe to remove placeholder work. We barely can get one draft published in six months, so we will waste time having to restore placeholders every six months.
Rain Breaw Michaels	Agree	Rachael will be presenting the process to the COGA TF on Thursday, so I will relay any new comments from the TF as soon following that as possible.
Andrew Kirkpatrick	Agree with the following changes	The sandbox should show content that isn't stable, with an appropriate warning/indication, but only in the sandbox, not in the editor's draft. The Polishing level indicates that the requirement to get to this level is AG agreement but then two bullets down it says that a CFC is required. Which is correct? If a CfC is needed for polishing then I'm ok with that level being in the editor's draft and maybe the Working draft (but with both indicating the stability level).
Laura Carlson	Agree with the following changes	Agree if the following 3 changes are made: 1. The Sandbox should be prominently titled "Sandbox" and have a prominent warning such as: "WARNING: This document lacks Working Group consensus. Consult the Editors Draft for content that has working group agreement. Consult the Working Draft for for content has Working Group consensus. This document is a Sandbox where content shifts at varying rates. Some members of the working group have strong convictions that its content or some of its content is heading in the wrong direction." As Jake said in the August process survey we need to agree on the direction. Jake said, "It feels like it has been decided that we all go to Mexico by car, and now we can choose if we want to visit Tijuana, Guadalajara, or Hermosillo. Maybe not everyone in the group wants to go to Mexico but Canada, or even Europe, and not even by car…" [1] 2. The WCAG 3.0 Process Proposal lacks details of adding notes. Working Group members should have opportunity to add notes to the Sandbox and Working Draft explaining concerns. As Cybele said [2] in last week's process survey, Sandbox content should have "Notes from AGWG Members" as "There may be times when the position of the editors differs from the views of a number of members and a need for that conversation to be part of the next draft." 3. When a decision does not get agreement, some mechanism should be established and it recorded on the decision page [3], so that the same debate does not repeat over and over again without new information. (Media exemptions is an example.) [1] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/approach/results [2] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/approach_nov_2/results [3] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Decisions
Sarah Horton	Agree with the following changes	- Clarify that we are publishing two documents, a working draft and an editor’s draft that has a “sandbox” filter. - Extend the time subgroups can work on placeholder and exploratory content. - Add “with the sandbox filter” to Step 2: Exploratory, “If the working group agrees to add the content as exploratory, then the content will be added to the editor’s draft [with the sandbox filter].” - Add details about how working group agreement will be managed for content that does not require CfC, where “consensus in a meeting is the level required.” Will it require no objections? If content with objections can be published in the editor’s draft, how will those objections be recorded and tracked? Also, just a note on the ”sandbox” concept. I responded late to last week’s survey noting, “The “sandbox” proposal was for an open, collaborative, and creative space to support experimentation and prototyping. Given that the process proposal requires working group agreement to add content to the editor’s draft, that means the editor’s draft can’t really be considered a sandbox.” This revised proposed process supports something that might become a working group sandbox, which is useful and important. However, the subgroups still don’t have that open, collaborative, and creative space. It would be helpful to look at how we might pull together a shared subgroups sandbox from the proposed process, perhaps using a branch of the editor’s draft repository, so that subgroups can experiment with content that does not have working group agreement.
Alastair Campbell	Agree	I also think we need to move past this question asap, we can always tweak it later.
Bruce Bailey	Agree	Just an aside, but now that we have it mapped out, a top-down orientation for the workflow diagram might make it a little bit more digestable.
Jennifer Delisi	Agree with the following changes	I have concerns about the use of the word polishing. To promote plain language, I recommend using a phrase more consistent with content as opposed to physical objects that may be difficult for some that interpret this word more literally. For example: revising. This word when reviewed as part of a content maturity model often is listed with tasks such as additions, arrangements, replacing of content. Stable is another term that could have multiple definitions. If using along with a qualifier, such as content maturity: stable then it is easier to understand. Because of the complexity of the labeling, making it easy to find the definitions for the labels while using the content will be essential for some. Having a glossary, a "legend", and other methods for quickly identifying the meaning without losing your train of thought while in the documents will be important for many. Related: phrases like the following require memory. "If a stage is not marked as having a 'CFC' then consensus in a meeting is the level required." I strongly recommend having ways for this to be transparent when used within the documents, or the process is "assumed" and therefore invisible. Also, my "Agree with the following changes" includes acknowledgement that the COGA task force will be reviewing later in the week and their recommendations need to be heard and reviewed. I wanted to express thanks to the chairs for working on this process and having such detailed conversation about this. This work will enable more individuals to participate in the process.
John Kirkwood	Agree
Gregg Vanderheiden	Agree with the following changes	Very good. Only suggestions are editorial to clarify meaning (important in process document). EDIT #1: (make wording the same and add parenthetical) In the Placeholder -- it says Asynchronous working group agreement if possible, in call agreement if needed. In other sections - it says Working group agreement (meeting/survey). you might use the same language in placeholder if it is meant to be the same process. Also - you might add a parenthetical on " Asynchronous working group agreement if possible" to explain what it means might also be useful in a process document. Maybe add the following paranthendical "Asynchronous working group agreement if possible (email <poll/survey/cfc/or-whatever-is-meant-by-Asynchronous-agreement>)" EDIT #2 (Make wording the same in chart) Slight editorial change in the flow diagram version. In the "public - placeholder" section of the proposal it reads " Sandbox (Editor’s Draft content with Sandbox Filter applied)" while exploratory reads "Sandbox (Editor’s Draft Unfiltered)" and Maturing and Stable read "Editor’s Draft including warning and markup" The first one is ambiguous. Suggest that it be changed to match the exploratory text "Sandbox (Editor’s Draft Unfiltered)" for clarity since there are no filters on the sandbox.