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 2022-09-09 to 2022-09-13.

14 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Comments and Concerns to include into a draft editor's note
Update the 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 requirements. 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
Shawn Lauriat
Todd Libby
John Rochford
Jennifer Strickland	I'm am currently unconvinced — but open to hearing more! — that the issue severity categorization is sufficiently explored for a range of cognitive considerations. There are equity concerns to be considered and I look forward to future conversations. At this time I understand this is some lines in the sand and there is more work to collaborate upon. Might there be an opportunity to collaborate on this with members of COGA and the equity sub-group?
Francis Storr
Stefan Schnabel
Gundula Niemann	please correct grammar in "How to deal with people having have different ideas on what is critical?"
Jeanne F Spellman	Add question: #. How to account for cumulative errors that become critical? This is essential to provide equity for cognitive and other fatigue-related disabilities. The Critical Severity spreadsheet does not appear to address this.
Michael Gower	bullet 2, correct "having have". Otherwise fine.
Jaunita George
Alastair Campbell	I think we could do with another pass at the updates, quite a bit of the non-note content reads like it should be in a note. Rather than add it as exploratory, I'd rather take another pass and get agreement to add as standard content.
Sarah Horton
Makoto Ueki	I like this direction. This is one of the big challenges for WCAG 3 though. I'm looking forward to the next phase.
Laura Carlson

2. Update the testing section with the new content

Do you support updating the methods and adding an issue severity section to the requirements document with 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	12
no

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

Details

Responder	Update the testing section with the new content	Comments
Shawn Lauriat	yes
Todd Libby	yes
John Rochford	yes
Jennifer Strickland	yes
Francis Storr	yes
Stefan Schnabel	yes
Gundula Niemann		functional images: The 'procedure [for html]' should reflect the procedure for technology Agnostic, but the results do not match. It also says "If the image contains text that is not purely decorative, the value of the alt attribute is the same as the text." while the technology agnostic version says "If the image contains text that is not purely decorative, the text alternative contains the same text.". Containing it is sufficient and might even be more appropriate. The alternative text for images says "Check that functional, informative, and images of text have alternative text that serves an equivalent purpose of the image". There s no equivalent in the captions test.
Jeanne F Spellman	yes	It's a good start, but it needs to integrate work that has been done by other groups.
Michael Gower		FYI, I found it very difficult to find some of the changes in files in 656 from the preview link! I believe it's found on the test tab of this page, in case anyone else was having challenges: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2020/methods/functional-images/ IN record to the spreadsheet, I only had read access, so made a copy and started putting in some comments https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ClnYoB42Qql9IqgTNPz-ZBPIoiGu60xVL0mmLTy2NFQ/edit?usp=sharing
Jaunita George	yes
Alastair Campbell	yes	Question: Do we mark informative docs as exploratory, or is that the assumption? Comment: Including critical issues raises the question of what to do with them. I.e. how does it affect conformance. We have overlaps with scoping, scoring and conformance, and I think having this should encourage the discussion.
Sarah Horton	yes
Makoto Ueki	yes
Laura Carlson	yes