W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Editor Draft Review

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2023-02-09 to 2023-03-02.

17 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Technology agnostic methods
  2. Name of Test Types
  3. Accessibility Supported
  4. DONE: Editorial Notes
  5. DONE: Full Draft - Editorial
  6. DONE: Full Draft - Substantive
  7. DONE: Guidelines

1. Technology agnostic methods

A question that came up last week was: How do we write outcomes and methods to allow people to test emerging technologies, existing technologies that we haven't written methods for, and situations where responsibility shifts from the author to the user agent over time?. One suggestion was writing a technology-agnostic method for each outcome.

The current text in the draft is below. This relies on the text associated with the outcome to guide these situations.

Each outcome includes methods associated with different technologies. Each method contains techniques and sets of tests for meeting the outcome. The outcome is written so that testers can test the accessibility of new and emerging technologies based solely on the outcome, even when methods do not yet exist for those technologies.

Proposed text would change this to create a technology-agnostic method. Language for that might look like:

Each outcome includes methods. Methods may be technology agnostic or technology-specific. Each method contains techniques and sets of tests for meeting the outcome. The outcomes and technology-agnostic methods are written so that testers can test the accessibility of new and emerging technologies and other situations where a technology-specific method does not exist.

Other options may be posssible. It may be useful to reread Writing WCAG 3 outcomes and revised method template.

Do you:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with keeping the current language (Handle these situations at the outcome level) 5
Agree with the proposed language (Create a technology-agnostic method) 9
Something else (Propose in comments) 1

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

Details

Responder Technology agnostic methodsComments
Bruce Bailey Agree with keeping the current language (Handle these situations at the outcome level)
Jonathan Avila Agree with the proposed language (Create a technology-agnostic method) If methods are not normative - then ultimately outcomes will still need to be what is met - but having both general and specific methods would be very helpful and so I agree we should add general methods. The question then becomes can people use the general methods when they don't like or want to use the specific ones even when the specific ones apply? If the outcome is normative then the answer is probably yes - any method can be used to meet the outcome even the non ideal ones.
Homer Gaines Agree with the proposed language (Create a technology-agnostic method)
Todd Libby Agree with the proposed language (Create a technology-agnostic method)
Jennifer Strickland Agree with keeping the current language (Handle these situations at the outcome level)
Detlev Fischer I think the assumption that the outcome should (in theory) be testable without reference to specific methods is fine. It allows for future methods for future techniques and technologies. Apart from the change of term, no change in substance compared to WCAG 2.X here. :)

The achilles heel is the notion of "accessibility-supported". Because in practice, outcome tests will often need to pick specific installations (OS/UA/AT) and the PASS/FAIL/(EXEMPLARY) result can hinge on these.

In the past, the definition of "accessibilty supported" has been something like "works in at least two different environments (OS/UA/AT)". This has always been problematic, and I am not sure how we can improve on that, if at all. But I think we need to integrate the notion of "accessibility supported" -- and "accessibility baseline", if testing the outcome focuses on specific constrained environments. It would be nice to firm up the wobbly notion of "accessibility supported" or find something better - but I don't see what that could be.
Wendy Reid Agree with the proposed language (Create a technology-agnostic method)
David MacDonald Agree with the proposed language (Create a technology-agnostic method) I'm OK with technology agnostic techniques such as how to write alternative text.
Makoto Ueki Agree with keeping the current language (Handle these situations at the outcome level) I'd like to suggest that we will revisit this issue after we wrote up Outcomes and Methods including techniques and sets of tests. We should do it for at least the existing WCAG 2.x SC at first. It is hard for us to be on the same page when we discuss anything in ambiguous way, especially when we don't have concrete examples.
Poornima Badhan Subramanian
Andrew Somers Agree with the proposed language (Create a technology-agnostic method)
Laura Carlson Agree with keeping the current language (Handle these situations at the outcome level)
Jay Mullen Agree with the proposed language (Create a technology-agnostic method)
Wilco Fiers Something else (Propose in comments) With my ACT TF Facilitator hat on, strong -1 from me.

This implicitly reverses a decision we made in the past, to use the ACT Rules Format for WCAG 3 methods. ACT rules are not technology agnostic, and so having methods that are, means we'll have methods that don't follow the ACT rules format. The reason this isn't allowed in ACT is because technology agnostic language is inherently ambiguous. It creates all the same problems we have with interpretation that WCAG 2, and for which ACT was set up in the first place.

If we have testable technology agnostic outcomes, that should be enough. If that isn't enough the outcome is the problem, not the lack of a method. Even if we can't change the outcome, there is additional documentation around the outcome that we can use to provide generic information in.

I feel that methods should be used only when we know how to give proper advice on things. There are no "universal" solutions. Every technology is different. I don't believe there is good advice we can give that is applicable literally everywhere. Especially not advice that we could give that applies for every user need. Something that works in HTML very well may not work for your web game built in Unity. If we don't know, we shouldn't give the impression that we do.
Gregg Vanderheiden Agree with the proposed language (Create a technology-agnostic method)
Mary Jo Mueller Agree with keeping the current language (Handle these situations at the outcome level) Since the Outcomes are intended to be written as testable statements, they may be clear enough to generally understand how to test them without having a technology-agnostic method. However, I do recall in WCAG 2 that general techniques were helpful in gaining a good understanding of the requirement with the examples it contained. If people are worried about technology-agnostic methods when a "better" or "preferred" method is more difficult to accomplish so they take the easier route....then perhaps the "preferred methods" per technology can be marked as such and when content is implemented using those preferred methods could potentially cause an improvement in scoring. Just a thought.

IMO, we can start out keeping this as-is, but may have to pivot as outcomes and methods are developed. If we discover there is a definitive need for technology-agnostic methods, those can be added.

Maybe I'm not understanding Wilco's concern, but I'm not sure how this change affects the ability to use the ACT Rule format. I guess this is another problem with not having concrete examples of what we're talking about.
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Agree with the proposed language (Create a technology-agnostic method) Slight suggested revision: "Each outcome includes methods. Methods may be technology agnostic or technology-specific. Each method contains techniques and sets of tests for meeting the outcome. The outcomes and technology-agnostic methods are written so that testers can *verify* the accessibility of new and emerging technologies and other situations where a technology-specific method does not exist."

2. Name of Test Types

The group has gone back and forth between "quantitative" and "computational." I've put together a list of names we've previously discussed. Which do you prefer?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Quantitative 4
Computational 1
Something else (put name(s) in comments) 1

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

Details

Responder Name of Test TypesComments
Bruce Bailey
Jonathan Avila
Homer Gaines
Todd Libby
Jennifer Strickland
Detlev Fischer
Wendy Reid
David MacDonald
Makoto Ueki
Poornima Badhan Subramanian
Andrew Somers Something else (put name(s) in comments) IMO, neither quantitative or computational are plain language. That said, quantitative is my least favorite as it applies only "measuring a quantity"

Computational is much better, because it indicates how a test can be or is performed (i.e. with automation) but is not limited to "quantities". Also, it is a more active voice.

Nevertheless I dislike both of these. "Procedural" is a better term, associated with "process" / "processing", and allowing for more of an active-voice in statements.

Similarly, a better active term than "qualitative" could be "evaluative" or "assessable"
Laura Carlson Quantitative
Jay Mullen Quantitative
Wilco Fiers Computational
Gregg Vanderheiden Quantitative
Mary Jo Mueller Quantitative Quantitative to me means it is numbers-based, countable, or measurable - which seems perfectly reasonable in this context. "Quantifiable" could be an alternate term, meaning "able to be measured or counted".
Rachael Bradley Montgomery

3. Accessibility Supported

Detlev suggested adding the editor's note: "We assume for the time being that the concept of accessibility support remains the same as in WCAG 2.X, but we are open to changing it if the new conformance model suggests that it can be improved upon."

Do you:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with this editor's note 5
Agree with changes listed in the comments
Disagree

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

Details

Responder Accessibility SupportedComments
Bruce Bailey
Jonathan Avila
Homer Gaines
Todd Libby
Jennifer Strickland
Detlev Fischer
Wendy Reid
David MacDonald
Makoto Ueki
Poornima Badhan Subramanian
Andrew Somers
Laura Carlson Agree with this editor's note
Jay Mullen Agree with this editor's note
Wilco Fiers Agree with this editor's note
Gregg Vanderheiden Agree with this editor's note
Mary Jo Mueller Agree with this editor's note
Rachael Bradley Montgomery

4. DONE: Editorial Notes

What additional editorial notes should be added to this draft?

Details

Responder Comments
Bruce Bailey
Jonathan Avila
Homer Gaines
Todd Libby
Jennifer Strickland
Detlev Fischer
Wendy Reid
David MacDonald
Makoto Ueki
Poornima Badhan Subramanian
Andrew Somers
Laura Carlson
Jay Mullen
Wilco Fiers
Gregg Vanderheiden
Mary Jo Mueller Upon a quick read it is difficult to parse through to find out what things are just editor's notes with descriptions vs. editor's notes asking for feedback. Considering many people are stretched for time, providing the reviewers with focus topics can be helpful for everyone.

There are different approaches to solve this. Some ideas are: Document what parts/sections had major updates since the last public draft. Possibly styling editor's notes with questions differently than editor's notes that just has commentary information; it could help someone scan for desired input. Maybe a "goals for this draft" section which highlights sections that are important to read and get feedback on, as well as focused questions to ponder when reading those sections all in one place. Having all questions in one place allows for easy copy/paste into another document to work on responses and keep track of what you've looked at. As someone who reviews during small chunks of time between other work, it's key for me to work that way. The questions could be repeated inside of the specific sections (using the same verbiage) in case someone just wants to skip to areas of interest to them. That way we can hopefully get the focused feedback we want to receive, with less "noise" issues that we tend to close or ignore which may cause reviewers to feel their input wasn't welcome.
Rachael Bradley Montgomery

5. DONE: Full Draft - Editorial

Please review the Full draft for editorial changes. Are any editorial fixes needed?

Note: Editorial fixes will be made before the meeting that we discuss this survey. This question is only for editorial fixes. Substantive comments, changes, and questions should be listed in the next question.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
yes, the editorial fixes needed are listed in the comments field 5
no editorial fixes are needed at this time. 4

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

Details

Responder DONE: Full Draft - EditorialComments
Bruce Bailey yes, the editorial fixes needed are listed in the comments field
Jonathan Avila
Homer Gaines no editorial fixes are needed at this time.
Todd Libby no editorial fixes are needed at this time.
Jennifer Strickland The link to "Requirements for Silver" in Section 1.4 goes to a page entitled "Requirements for WCAG 3.0" — it would be better if these matched to meet expectation.

In Section 2 there is a link on the word Testing, that is a broken link.

I'm not clear on the "Plain language summary of Guidelines" since it's a list of guidelines and I expected links to sample guidelines — I might be misunderstanding.

In an Editor's Note this text, "The individuals and organizations that use WCAG vary widely and include web designers and developers, policy makers, purchasing agents, teachers, and students." — and I wonder about "web" in that line. I know the W3C is focused on the web yet now WCAG supports those who are developing documents that are not necessarily hosted on the web such as electronic documents (.doc, .xls, .ppt, .pdf, etc.). I trust that the team that worked on this text thought this through because I see how thoughtful y'all are! Just in case, though, I anticipate this might be an issue for the broader user base.

The links under the sentence, "The guidelines included in this draft have been selected to show different types of content:" include broken links or links to 404 pages (i.e., Structured Content).

Under the sample guidelines some have "Guideline" and some have "Outcome" — should these be consistent? To an end user I think this might be confusing. The text sizes vary, too, where Guideline text is larger than Outcome text.

Error Prevention is larger than the others.

There is a spelling error in the following sentence:
"Assertions are atributable statements by person or organization that they followed a procedure to improve accessibility. Assertions are addressed in Section 4.2." where 'atributable' should be 'attributable'.

The following sentence would benefit from use of an Oxford comma:
"Get feedback from designers, developers and other communities on wording choice." to "Get feedback from designers, developers*,* and other communities on wording choice."

I have a hunch that the following line "Develop detailed examples of methods and test," should be "Develop detailed examples of methods and test*s*,".

The following sentence "Test the accuracy, reliability, repeatability, etc. of this approach," should include a comma as "Test the accuracy, reliability, repeatability, etc.*,* of this approach,".

The callout box for "Example quantitative test" would benefit from distinguishing that text as a heading in the box.


Typo: "How well does scoring support the nead for equity across disability types?" should be (s/b) "How well does scoring support the ne*e*d for equity across disability types?"

The "Plain language summary of Assertions and Procedures" is empty except for "@@".

"What optional, supporting documentation should organizations provide?" could remove the comma.

"Should assertions be dated, expire and/or be reviewed on a regular basis?" s/b "Should assertions be dated, expire*,* and/or be reviewed on a regular basis?"

"Test the accuracy, reliability, repeatability, etc. of this approach" s/b "Test the accuracy, reliability, repeatability, etc.*,* of this approach"

In the following paragraph, provide a link to "Documenting Assertions."
"The quality of an assertion can be tested based on how well the assertion meets the documentation requirements for assertions (See *Documenting Assertions*). Conforming to WCAG does not require testing supporting documentation; however, organizations may decide to adopt additional documentation requirements based on the procedure being asserted."

In Section 6, in the Editor's Note the last bullet reads, "Wrte" and I suspect it should be "Write" or something like that.

Under each of the Conformance levels, is there a reason for the last bullet to end with a period, or the middle one in 6.3.2? It seems unusual that we have bullets throughout that sometimes end with "and" or a comma and then a final bullet ends with a period. Perhaps this is a remnant from when the content was in sentence format and it is confusing to read in bullets with the remaining sentence structural elements.

I stopped at 7, due to time constraint.


Detlev Fischer Section 10:
"Content that mostly meets the requirements but has problems can interfere with the user's ability to complete a process begun elsewhere."
If the idea is expressed here that a process that is accessible / passes in all its elements may be interfered with by other content outside this process (say, a blinking advert underneath)? If so, that idea is not expressed clearly.
I suggest dropping "begun elsewhere": it seems superfluous and unncecessaryly limiting - but maybe there is something exprssed here that I don't understand because of the way the rest of the sentence is phrased.

The draft has: "WCAG 3.0 therefore defines two inter-related ways to scope content: views and processes. Evaluation is done on one or more complete views or processes, and conformance is determined on the basis of one or more complete views or processes."
I think this is unclear. It would be clearer to state that a process may encompass one or several views and it conforms if and only if all views of it conform. On the level of view, one view in a process can certainly conform while others do not. But process (parent) and views (children) is a clear hierarchical relationship. I find this clearer than the somewhat fuzzy "inter-relate".
Wendy Reid no editorial fixes are needed at this time.
David MacDonald yes, the editorial fixes needed are listed in the comments field There were many different reasons why we placed SCs at Levels A/AA/AAA in WCAG. Its priority was only one of many considerations. We didn't want to prioritize one disability over another. I'm afraid inferring that placement was based on priorities in the Editor's note, may foster a misunderstanding of WCAG 2.x Levels. I think we could just remove that sentence.

"EDITOR'S NOTE
...Severity rating could contribute towards scoring and prioritization. <remove>This is a potential way to replace how A/AA/AAA levels represented severity by incorporating a mechanism to evaluate severity as a part of testing.</remove>"
Makoto Ueki no editorial fixes are needed at this time.
Poornima Badhan Subramanian
Andrew Somers
Laura Carlson yes, the editorial fixes needed are listed in the comments field In Section 1.2.:

"to focus on more vetted cotent."
should be:
"to focus on more vetted content."

For "Best Practice" Definition:

"Methods which are not required and meet a higher requirement thn methods"
should be:
"Methods which are not required and meet a higher requirement than methods"
Jay Mullen
Wilco Fiers
Gregg Vanderheiden yes, the editorial fixes needed are listed in the comments field the structure needs fixing.
4. is an overview (good) and mentions that there are outcomes and assertions. It then goes on to discuss outcomes - but says assertions are covered in 4.2 so it doesnt introduce them like outcomes. (why doesnt it similarly say outcomes are dicussed in 4.1 since they are (that is the title of that section) instead of discussing them in 4
SUGGESTION: Give equal introduction to both outcomes and assertions in 4. then discuss Outcomes further in 4.1 and Assertions further in 4.2

To make it easier - here is text that could be used in 4.

WCAG 3.0 defines outcomes and assertions.
* Outcomes are written as testable statements that allow testers to reliably determine if the content being evaluated satisfies the criteria. Outcomes may be requirements or best practices. Only outcomes can be tested independently (Outcomes are addressed in Section 4.1).
* Assertions are statements by an author/organization stating that they did something or followed some practice. Assertions are not testable beyond the fact that an assertion was made. _(Assertions are addressed in Section 4.2.)

Mary Jo Mueller yes, the editorial fixes needed are listed in the comments field For the Guidelines and Outcomes sections, will there be working detailed content available when using links such as "Learn how to meet guideline "Text alternatives"" or "Outcome details and methods for "Text alternative available""? If not, suggest commenting out those links so you don't get feedback that they don't work.

It also seems odd that exceptions are listed after the link for the How to, as in the Clear Words guideline. But maybe that was already a decision that was previously made.

In the sentence, "WCAG 3.0 defines outcomes and assertions," the link to outcomes is going to the section named outcomes rather than the definition. Needs to go to the definition - document anchor #dfn-outcome.

Conformance Levels section's Editor's note, Next steps, last bullet seems to be missing text. Says, "Wrte".

Question: What is the section status of "7. User generated content"; it is identified as a normative section.

Rachael Bradley Montgomery

6. DONE: Full Draft - Substantive

We hope to move the majority of the content of this editor's draft to the working draft. We discussed issues with conformance last Tuesday. What other substantive issues remain that need to be resolved before we do so?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I am comfortable moving the current contents to the working draft 3
I I am comfortable moving the current contents to the working draft after we address the issues listed in the comments 7
I am not comfortable moving the contents of the sections listed in the comments to the working draft
Something else (See comments) 1

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

Details

Responder DONE: Full Draft - SubstantiveComments
Bruce Bailey I am comfortable moving the current contents to the working draft
Jonathan Avila
Homer Gaines I I am comfortable moving the current contents to the working draft after we address the issues listed in the comments
Todd Libby I I am comfortable moving the current contents to the working draft after we address the issues listed in the comments
Jennifer Strickland Something else (See comments) I'm wondering about the qualitative tests… if these items are tested by folks that may be early in their understanding, could we document something about being open to people with disabilities and other seasoned testers for guidance on meeting the outcomes? I acknowledge how difficult crafting this text is.



Detlev Fischer I I am comfortable moving the current contents to the working draft after we address the issues listed in the comments Section 6
6.2.2 Option 2: Pass/Fail/Exemplary: Passes Bronze and 50% of Outcomes score Exemplary
While I strongly favor option 2 over the option 1 that draws best practices into the conformance model, I prefer a solution that allocates additional outcomes to Silver and Gold that need to be met to qualify for that level, for the reasons mentioned by several people in last week's call (openness to gaming). This can also take the form, suggested by Dan I believe, of one outcome with different levels that map onto bronze / silver / gold.

I think the hand-waving in section 9. "Only accessibility-supported ways of using technologies" is dangerous because the way of defining accessibility support will have a strong impact on outcomes and any notion of conformance - these two cannot be separated. So if there are no thoughts so far on revising or future-proofing the notion of "accessibility support", I would be more comfortable with a statement that says "we assume for zhe time being that the concept of accessibility support remains the same as in WCAG 2.X, but we are open to changing it if the new conformance model suggests that it can be improved upon" - or similar.
Wendy Reid I am comfortable moving the current contents to the working draft I think the current version makes it clear that conformance is still an open topic that we intend to continue work on. Holding back the draft while we refine this section would just create delays. In addition, with publishing the draft, it may solicit feedback we could use in improving those sections. It's called a draft for a reason.
David MacDonald I am comfortable moving the current contents to the working draft
Makoto Ueki I I am comfortable moving the current contents to the working draft after we address the issues listed in the comments +1 to Wilco on using computational rather than quantitative. I'm not a native speaker though.
Poornima Badhan Subramanian
Andrew Somers
Laura Carlson I I am comfortable moving the current contents to the working draft after we address the issues listed in the comments Agree with Detlev for Section 6.2.2 "Option 2: Pass/Fail/Exemplary: Passes Bronze and 50% of Outcomes score Exemplary" is open to gaming. Maybe have a note about that concern?

Like Gregg, I'm not sure what "scoring a requirement as exemplary" means. Agree that it would be better to simplify the language as he suggested to fail, pass, or above.
Jay Mullen
Wilco Fiers I I am comfortable moving the current contents to the working draft after we address the issues listed in the comments Why did computational testing get renamed to quantitative? When computational was first proposed the WG seemed fairly happy with it. It was the "qualitative" that raised questions. I'm surprised to see computational renamed, instead of qualitative. Was that a decision the group made that I missed somewhere? I much prefer computational over quantitative. These things aren't going to be truly quantitative I think.

See my previous comments on the conformance options also. I don't think those options should go in, but I'm ignoring that for my vote here.

Side comment: I didn't have enough time to review everything. Still getting used to survey schedules. There might be more in the future, so apologies in advance for that.
Gregg Vanderheiden I I am comfortable moving the current contents to the working draft after we address the issues listed in the comments I think Scoring is way too underdeveloped - but we need to get input on it so -- I would like to see it go to exploratory

but we need to add the EDITORS NOTE with all the concern before we do. Currently there are NO concerns listed for scoring. (Some of

I would also add a sentence after 4.1.5.2 explaining how Exemplary might be used -- something like this
4.1.5.2 Option 2: Fail/Pass/Exemplary
Outcomes will be scored as Pass, Fail, or Exemplary. ‘Exemplary’ meets a higher requirement than that needed to Pass. Exemplary scores may be used, for example, as part of securing a higher level of conformance (Silver, Gold).


it is not clear what "scoring a requirement as exemplary" means. if it is a requirement you pass or fail. Maybe it should say Scoring and OUTCOME as fail, pass, or above. That is easier to read and grok.
Mary Jo Mueller 6.3.2 Option 2: Pass/Fail/Exemplary - IMO, this section should also have the editor's note that says, "A way to integrate assertions would be needed" and remove the "50% of assertions pass". Reasoning was already given in the previous survey on Conformance Levels content.

Rachael Bradley Montgomery

7. DONE: Guidelines

The editor's propose we remove all guidelines except the ones we are actively using as examples of the current approach. We will then add them back into the draft as placeholder content as we rework them. This will also allow us to point to the soon-to-be redesigned secondary pages.

The guidelines that will likely be used as the first two exemplars are Clear Language and Error Prevention.

Do you:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with removing all guidelines except the current exemplars 11
Disagree with removing all guidelines except the current exemplars (Please explain in comments)
Something else (Please explain in comments)

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

Details

Responder DONE: GuidelinesComments
Bruce Bailey Agree with removing all guidelines except the current exemplars
Jonathan Avila
Homer Gaines Agree with removing all guidelines except the current exemplars
Todd Libby Agree with removing all guidelines except the current exemplars
Jennifer Strickland Agree with removing all guidelines except the current exemplars
Detlev Fischer
Wendy Reid Agree with removing all guidelines except the current exemplars
David MacDonald Agree with removing all guidelines except the current exemplars
Makoto Ueki Agree with removing all guidelines except the current exemplars
Poornima Badhan Subramanian Agree with removing all guidelines except the current exemplars
Andrew Somers
Laura Carlson Agree with removing all guidelines except the current exemplars
Jay Mullen
Wilco Fiers Agree with removing all guidelines except the current exemplars I assume these two exemplars get published as exploratory?
Gregg Vanderheiden
Mary Jo Mueller Agree with removing all guidelines except the current exemplars Removing them will help reviewers focus on what is there rather than delving into content that is not really ready for review. Saves time for reviewers AND saves time in the WG handling comments that are outside of our area of focus for the draft.
Rachael Bradley Montgomery

More details on responses

  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 13, February 2023 at 00:53 (UTC)
  • Jonathan Avila: last responded on 13, February 2023 at 17:58 (UTC)
  • Homer Gaines: last responded on 16, February 2023 at 16:01 (UTC)
  • Todd Libby: last responded on 16, February 2023 at 16:33 (UTC)
  • Jennifer Strickland: last responded on 16, February 2023 at 17:10 (UTC)
  • Detlev Fischer: last responded on 16, February 2023 at 17:53 (UTC)
  • Wendy Reid: last responded on 17, February 2023 at 21:05 (UTC)
  • David MacDonald: last responded on 17, February 2023 at 23:17 (UTC)
  • Makoto Ueki: last responded on 18, February 2023 at 12:04 (UTC)
  • Poornima Badhan Subramanian: last responded on 19, February 2023 at 07:07 (UTC)
  • Andrew Somers: last responded on 23, February 2023 at 07:54 (UTC)
  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 26, February 2023 at 17:54 (UTC)
  • Jay Mullen: last responded on 27, February 2023 at 14:56 (UTC)
  • Wilco Fiers: last responded on 28, February 2023 at 12:28 (UTC)
  • Gregg Vanderheiden: last responded on 28, February 2023 at 16:09 (UTC)
  • Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 2, March 2023 at 23:31 (UTC)
  • Rachael Bradley Montgomery: last responded on 7, March 2023 at 13:34 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

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

Report issues on GitHub project w3c/wbs-design or by mail to sysreq.