W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Accept Issue Severity PR as exploratory content

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2022-09-21 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
Update the guidelines and testing section with the new content

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

Please review the editor's note at the top of the issue severity section in the guidelines. Are there any additional comments, questions or concerns you wish to include in an editor's note for this exploratory content?

Details

Responder	Comments and Concerns to include into a draft editor's note
Gregg Vanderheiden	Since this is exploratory - I think these are fine. But I have several concerns about whether this approach will work in the end. I post them to those working on this can think about these and figure out how to handle so they don't upend things later. 1) severity to whom? What is not severe for one group may be critical for another group - or subgroup. 2) including techniques and tests in the guidelines sounds like a bad idea. - We are already changing techniques over time as technology and AT change. That is good. But if they are in the guidelines.... - we didnt have time to create the techniques for 2.1 and 2.2. if we had held them up for techniques they would never have gotten out - We can't add new techniques to match the - tests are tied to techniques and to technologies often so tests also need to evolve. Tests in the guidelines will look very much like just restating the guidelines/success criteria. See EN 301 549. it is useful for some criteria where there is ambiguity of clauses or nested requirements (which we avoided in WCAG2 series) - but this looks like more 3) Critical features -- is the same. Critical to whom. Many cognitive, language, and learning disability guidelines do not look critical - just helpful - except they can be helpful to many or most but critical to those who can't use the content if not done. So OK as exploratory but there are many fundamental problems that need to be addressed to progress. We need to think through all the implication of ideas - including how to implement them - and how to maintain them over time. Putting things into the guidelines that need constant updating won't allow future proofing or long term relevance.
Jennifer Strickland
Francis Storr
Amanda Mace
Laura Carlson
Michael Gower	I think this is sufficient for now.
Jaunita George
Michael Cooper
Mary Jo Mueller
Sarah Horton
Bruce Bailey
Wilco Fiers
Jeanne F Spellman
Makoto Ueki
Marie Csanady
Michelle Lana
Gundula Niemann	As the severity of an issue can highly depend on the context, I would like to stress this point more than already done with point 3. Like by adding: How to handle situations where the severity of an issue depends on the context? Some examples: group skipping: On a small page with few groups missing group skipping is inconvenient, yet on a page with large groups missing group skipping can make a page practically unhandable. The lack of contrast might be inconvenient, specifically if the test is repeated or can be guessed,it might be a stopper if for example button labels cannot be perceived or navigation items need to proceed.
Shawn Lauriat
Andrew Kirkpatrick	ok as exploratory
Azlan Cuttilan
Shawn Thompson
Todd Libby

2. Update the guidelines and testing section with the new content

Do you support updating the methods and adding an issue severity section to the rguidelines with PR 661, and associated updates for the methods in PR 656? The content is currently exploratory.

If you answer No, please explain your reasoning and suggest an alternate direction in the comments

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
yes	20
no	1

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

Details

Responder	Update the guidelines and testing section with the new content	Comments
Gregg Vanderheiden	yes	OK as experimental. But I kind of wish we would not fill the guidelines with too many things that have large unanswered questions. Keeps us from looking for alternatives to achieve the same goals in a way that doesnt present the same problems.
Jennifer Strickland	yes
Francis Storr	yes
Amanda Mace	yes
Laura Carlson	yes	Okay as exploratory.
Michael Gower	yes	Two qualifiers... PR 661 seems identical to the editor's note in the prior survey question? As per my comments at TPAC, Functional images (which by definition are UIC) do not seem to require a separate test and they are redundant with 4.1.2 requirements. I'm okay with this going in, but I want to make sure we are aware of possible course corrections to how we assess.
Jaunita George	yes
Michael Cooper	yes
Mary Jo Mueller	yes
Sarah Horton	yes
Bruce Bailey	yes
Wilco Fiers	no	Is PR 656 adding an exploratory section to the requirements document? That looks odd.
Jeanne F Spellman	yes
Makoto Ueki	yes
Marie Csanady	yes
Michelle Lana	yes
Gundula Niemann		Once PR 661 is amended with the agreed changes coming out of Q2, I expect I'll agree. I can't really wrap my mind around PR 656 without a preview to see the context of the changes.
Shawn Lauriat	yes
Andrew Kirkpatrick	yes
Azlan Cuttilan	yes
Shawn Thompson	yes
Todd Libby	yes