w3c/wbs-design
or
by mail to sysreq
.
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.
This questionnaire was open from 2022-09-09 to 2022-09-12.
12 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
Please review the editor's note at the top of the equity section. Are there any additional comments, questions or concerns you wish to include in an editor's note for this exploratory content?
Responder | Comments and Concerns to include into a draft editor's note |
---|---|
Shawn Lauriat | |
Laura Carlson | |
Jennifer Strickland | Consider change — to avoid "difference" which feels more divisive than inclusive. "Efforts towards equity must, however, take into account all types of human difference." "Efforts towards equity must, however, consider the spectrum of human experience." |
John Rochford | |
Poornima Badhan Subramanian | |
Francis Storr | |
Michael Gower | Expand the term CEPC on first use. Put info on "Equity" definition up front (i.e., paragraph beginning "The term 'Equity' refers to the ability..." Overall, this looks like minutes of a discussion. I suggest the exploratory stuff has some (structure/purpose/areas to address, etc ). I don't think it's likely helpful to anyone consuming this material to just encounter a bunch of questions without a pre-amble. Although not all exploratory content may be assisted by this, perhaps we could have a template that answers the basics and gives some structure (similar to how there are Issue templates that force issue openers to provide some needed context and details so that reviewers of the ticket can more easily consume). |
Stefan Schnabel | |
Gundula Niemann | |
Jeanne F Spellman | |
Makoto Ueki | There should be description on what "CEPC" is. I'm not sure if people are familiar with this term. |
Jaunita George |
Do you support adding PR 654 into the requirements document as Exploratory?
If you answer No, please explain your reasoning and suggest an alternate direction in the comments
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
yes | 10 |
no | 2 |
Responder | Add Equity proposal into Requirements as exploratory | Comments |
---|---|---|
Shawn Lauriat | yes | |
Laura Carlson | yes | |
Jennifer Strickland | yes | |
John Rochford | yes | |
Poornima Badhan Subramanian | no | From the questions documented in the Editor's note, I observe that Equity is not one single requirement. This can be a broader topic that might possibly split into different sub-topics e.g. 'WCAG Conformance for various organization types', 'Conformance satisfying different user needs, 'alignment with civil legislation'. Some of them can be incorporated into each of WCAG 3 guidelines, where some of them are applicable as a Overall guide (e.g. 'alignment with civil legislation') |
Francis Storr | yes | |
Michael Gower | no | As per my comments above I think it's pretty important to have some level of context, even to exploratory content. I don't think it would take much to put this into a better state. Maybe some of us could work on a template? |
Stefan Schnabel | yes | |
Gundula Niemann | yes | with adaption: - The term 'socioeconomic' should be written consistently, currently it is written without hyphen in the first nite and with hyphen in the second note. - I feel uncomfortable with "How can we make the use of the guidelines equitable across user needs (i.e., a blind person being able to caption or judge color contrast)?": For captions, it is needed to listen and type. This likely is not issue. Judging visuals might be as hard for a blind person as judging audio is for a deaf person. How about adding 'to the greatest possible extent'? There certainly are boundaries, yet I understand we want to challenge them. |
Jeanne F Spellman | yes | |
Makoto Ueki | yes | |
Jaunita George | yes |
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
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
w3c/wbs-design
or
by mail to sysreq
.