W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Accept Equity PR as exploratory content (updated)

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2022-09-22 to 2022-09-27.

22 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Comments and Concerns to include into a draft editor's note
Add Equity proposal into Requirements as exploratory

1. Comments and Concerns to include into a draft editor's note

Please review the editor's note at the top of the equity section. Are there any additional comments, questions or concerns you have with this content?

Details

Responder	Comments and Concerns to include into a draft editor's note
Gregg Vanderheiden	I think this document has done a marvelous job of both capturing the breadth of equity (not just disability) and that the focus of our documents is disability equity. But it also hints strongly that our processes of creating the guidelines should be done in a way that practices equity in our participation. that is we have two foci. 1) better equity for the full spectrum of people with disabilities in the content that follows from following WCAG 3. and 2) Better equity of all types (not just accessibility) in our processes and participation. So maybe a tweak to the editors note. MAYBE something like: The Accessibility Guidelines Working Group wants to commit to a) improving equity of all types in our processes and participation and b) improving equity for the full spectrum of users with disabilities in content authored using WCAG3. Exactly what that will encompass and how it can be measured is under exploration and discussion.
Jennifer Strickland
Amanda Mace
Laura Carlson
Michael Gower	Thinking back on the conversation and where we ended up on language, I feel there is a duality caught in this brief editors' note, which may be better understood if it is stated clearly. These are the two things I'm perceiving wanting to be said: 1) The AGWG commits to advancing equity in our processes and content. 2) There is also a desire within the AGWG to contribute to equity at the W3C level. I feel those are two different but related matters. The first is very much in our control and mandate. The second feels like something more difficult to capture within a working group. If someone was at TPAC, they'd probably understand the context. Without it, the editor's note seems a little opaque.
Jaunita George
Michael Cooper
Francis Storr
Mary Jo Mueller
Sarah Horton
Bruce Bailey
Marie Csanady
Makoto Ueki
Michelle Lana
Shawn Lauriat
Gundula Niemann	A further question: How can we enable and include more people with diverse characteristics in developing WCAG3? two examples: The AGWG recruited members from different time zones and with different cognitive characteristics. time zone: Voting is done within the meeting with the members present. Members who do not join currently are not heard in the voting. The meeting time is most suitable for American (North and South) and European/African participants, is is very inconvenient for Asian participants. Depending on personal situation also participants in convenient time zones might not be able to participate. How can we make all voices heard without stopping us from moving forward? Cognitive / non-native speaker: It is hard to follow discussions for members who have any concentration, complexity, distraction, or language issue. draft resolutions often need a lot of context, even unwritten context, to be understood. i feel we can work on that.
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Azlan Cuttilan
Shawn Thompson
Todd Libby
Ben Tillyer
Poornima Badhan Subramanian

2. Add Equity proposal into Requirements as exploratory

Do you support adding PR 654 into the requirements document?

As a note, this will require a CFC before it is published, but please outline any issues now so that we can deal with them before CFC.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
yes	20
no	1

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder	Add Equity proposal into Requirements as exploratory	Comments
Gregg Vanderheiden	yes	The more times I read this - the more I appreciate the careful thoughtful wording of each paragraph. +1
Jennifer Strickland	yes
Amanda Mace	yes
Laura Carlson	yes
Michael Gower	yes	I'm fine with this. I am concerned that there is not explicit wording about intersectionality _within_ disabilities. There has been a lot of work in FPC in this space, and it seems to me that should be pointed out. The first sentence in the second paragraph seems like a place where there's an opportunity to say this explicitly.
Jaunita George	yes
Michael Cooper	yes
Francis Storr	yes
Mary Jo Mueller	yes
Sarah Horton	yes
Bruce Bailey	yes
Marie Csanady	yes
Makoto Ueki	yes
Michelle Lana	yes
Shawn Lauriat	yes
Gundula Niemann		Once we agreed on the changes triggered by discussing Q2, I expect myself to agree,
Andrew Kirkpatrick	no	I agree with the intent of the section, but we still need to discuss and address the idea of using exploratory sections within the requirements document. The WG decided to use them in the WCAG 3.0 draft, but not the requirements doc.
Azlan Cuttilan	yes
Shawn Thompson	yes
Todd Libby	yes
Ben Tillyer	yes
Poornima Badhan Subramanian	yes	I'm between Yes and No, as I'm still confused from my understanding that this subgroup target a broad spectrum of topics that involves WCAG3, Social-economic issues, diverse participation of users, diverse language inclusions, etc. Not sure if all can be covered in one requirement.

More details on responses

Gregg Vanderheiden: last responded on 22, September 2022 at 19:08 (UTC)
Jennifer Strickland: last responded on 22, September 2022 at 22:04 (UTC)
Amanda Mace: last responded on 23, September 2022 at 11:09 (UTC)
Laura Carlson: last responded on 25, September 2022 at 11:06 (UTC)
Michael Gower: last responded on 26, September 2022 at 14:45 (UTC)
Jaunita George: last responded on 26, September 2022 at 17:17 (UTC)
Michael Cooper: last responded on 26, September 2022 at 18:22 (UTC)
Francis Storr: last responded on 26, September 2022 at 18:39 (UTC)
Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 26, September 2022 at 21:05 (UTC)
Sarah Horton: last responded on 27, September 2022 at 09:03 (UTC)
Bruce Bailey: last responded on 27, September 2022 at 11:58 (UTC)
Marie Csanady: last responded on 27, September 2022 at 13:29 (UTC)
Makoto Ueki: last responded on 27, September 2022 at 13:30 (UTC)
Michelle Lana: last responded on 27, September 2022 at 13:30 (UTC)
Shawn Lauriat: last responded on 27, September 2022 at 13:48 (UTC)
Gundula Niemann: last responded on 27, September 2022 at 13:53 (UTC)
Andrew Kirkpatrick: last responded on 27, September 2022 at 14:14 (UTC)
Azlan Cuttilan: last responded on 27, September 2022 at 14:16 (UTC)
Shawn Thompson: last responded on 27, September 2022 at 14:20 (UTC)
Todd Libby: last responded on 27, September 2022 at 14:51 (UTC)
Ben Tillyer: last responded on 27, September 2022 at 15:36 (UTC)
Poornima Badhan Subramanian: last responded on 27, September 2022 at 15:44 (UTC)