W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Silver FPWD initial comments

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2020-08-27 to 2020-09-01.

16 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Survey Overview
  2. Introduction
  3. Structure of these guidelines
  4. Normative requirements
  5. Evaluation
  6. Conformance

1. Survey Overview

The current draft of WCAG 3.0 is being prepared for the First Public Working Draft (FPWD).

This survey is to gather feedback from the working group and Silver task force to reach a point where we can agree to release this document as the FPWD.

There is still scope for addressing issues, but whilst entering comments please do consider whether:

  • It is a minor thing that could still go out for public review if it is not changed;
  • It could be included in an editors note to encourage feedback from the public on that point.
  • It must be changed before going out for public review (i.e. you would object);

Please indicate in your comments which category of issue it is for you. Any answer that indicates there are issues without saying what they are (in the comment) will be ignored.

Please note: We do not have questions on 'The Guidelines' or 'Glossary' yet. We will come back to those sections later.

Details

Responder
Jeanne F Spellman
Jonathan Avila
Todd Libby
Francis Storr
Jake Abma
Frederick Boland
Bruce Bailey
Sarah Horton
Laura Carlson
Shari Butler
Janina Sajka
Peter Korn
Detlev Fischer
Michael Gower
David MacDonald
Shawn Lauriat

2. Introduction

The introduction section of WCAG 3.0 is non-normative, and sets the scene for the document.

Please review and comment if there are things you think should be changed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
This section can be published as it is now. 9
This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. 4
This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. 1

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

Details

Responder IntroductionComments
Jeanne F Spellman This section can be published as it is now. I like the inclusion of the Requirements. I like the Simplified Summary, although we may want to move the subsections of the Summary to each subsection.
Jonathan Avila
Todd Libby This section can be published as it is now.
Francis Storr This section can be published as it is now. I like the level of detail on the increase in scope, the key requirements sections, and the focus on user experience of WCAG 3.
Jake Abma This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. 1.

Extend as I read it is 'on top of... / extra' while WCAG3 will be a new replacement and should say so I think

REPLACE:
"These guidelines extend the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2."

TO SOMETHING LIKE:
"These guidelines will replace the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2"

---------------------------------

2.

We should not forget about / mention the 'old' / existing technologies... and is it only 'new methods' or also 'new tests'? also here what about existing ones (techniques)

REPLACE:
"It presents new methods and tests for making content accessible using more recent technologies."

TO SOMETHING LIKE:
"It presents new methods and tests for making content accessible using existing and more recent technologies."

---------------------------------

3.

While this is certainly true, we have always been focussing on an inequality is usage and should say so in the first place.

REPLACE:
"Who benefits from the guidelines?
Following the guidelines will improve the experience of all who use the content, not only people with disabilities."

TO SOMETHING LIKE:
"Who benefits from the guidelines?
While the guidelines focus specific on preventing barriers for people with disabilities, following the guidelines will improve the experience of all who use the content."

---------------------------------

4.

I do not think 'current ' is a proper word to mention here, WCAG 2.2 is as current as WCAG 3

REPLACE:
What did the Silver Task Force focus on?
Our aim for these updated guidelines was to make them more current and usable.

TO SOMETHING LIKE:
What did the Silver Task Force focus on?
Our aim for these updated guidelines was to make them usable for a broader audience.

Frederick Boland This section can be published as it is now.
Bruce Bailey This section can be published as it is now. Last sentence in paragraph before 1.1 Scope of WCAG 3.0 reads in part "...content that conforms to WCAG 2.2 A & AA".
Should be either "...content that conforms at WCAG 2.2 Level AA" or "...content that conforms to all WCAG 2.2 A and AA success criteria"
Sarah Horton This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. Establish and clarify where to go to get help: The Accessibility Guidelines Working Group, the Working Group, the
Silver Community Group, and the Silver Taskforce are all named and referenced (e.g., “the Working Group will provide transition support materials” and “Those who wish to use the new standard can get help from the Silver Community Group”).

Editorial changes would make the section more readable and clear, but are not required for public review.
Laura Carlson This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. In "1. Introduction: under "How did the focus evolve?"

Typo: space missing between "extendUser":
"extendUser Agent Accessibility Guidelines 2.0"

Typo: space missing between andAuthoring:
andAuthoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
Shari Butler This section can be published as it is now.
Janina Sajka This section can be published as it is now.
Peter Korn This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. I'd understood that one of the key themes coming from Silver research (https://www.w3.org/TR/accessibility-conformance-challenges/#themes-from-research) was to review & revise conformance. This was also addressed in the Draft Final Report of Silver (https://www.w3.org/community/silver/draft-final-report-of-silver/) which said of the Conformance Model that we should among other things "Develop scorecard or rubric measures for testing task accomplishment, instead of technical page conformance"; that we should also "Include a definition and concept for “substantially meets” so people are not excessively penalized for bugs that may not have a large impact on the experience of people with disabilities"; and that we should "Develop a more flexible method of claiming conformance that is better suited to accommodate dynamic or more regularly updated content." These things aren't in this draft, and are key to include in FPWD (even if they aren't "met by this document" in it's FPWD, I'd expect that to be listed here, and then note that more revisions will come in a future public working draft).

Section 1.1 contains the sentence "Creating WCAG 3.0's new conformance model included engaging policy makers in the creation process." I didn't see this important assertion substantiated elsewhere in the document (perhaps I missed it?).
Detlev Fischer This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. The statement that "These guidelines extend the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2" seems to conflict with a significantly different structure with new terminology.
..."across a variety of platforms" leaves open whether WCAG 3.0 it is still focused on web content (with something like WCAG2ICT mapping to other platforms) or is itself applicable beyond web (native apps, for example).
The sentence "Those who wish to use the new standard can get help from the Silver Community Group" seems a bit out of place in the introduction to a standard.
"Improving usability – especially for people starting out in accessible design" can easily be misunderstood to mean that WCAG now covers usability as well.
"Designing the standard to be more durable" - shouldn't that be "more flexible", "esier to update" or similar?
List under "Scope of WCAG 3.0" seems to partly repeat stuff under "What did the Silver Task Force focus on?"
Michael Gower This section can be published as it is now. I'd recommend "photosensitivity" be broadened/generalized to something like 'sensory disorders'
You may want to make "Technology Neutral" into "Technology neutrality" to match the usage of other bulllets under 1.3.
David MacDonald
Shawn Lauriat This section can be published as it is now. …with "as it is now" to mean with the editorial changes discussed during AG WG's September 1 call.

3. Structure of these guidelines

The Structure of these guidelines section of WCAG 3.0 is non-normative, and describes the structure of the document.

Please review and comment if there are things you think should be changed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
This section can be published as it is now. 9
This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. 3
This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. 1

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

Details

Responder Structure of these guidelinesComments
Jeanne F Spellman This section can be published as it is now. The process of writing this section has clarified a lot of the architecture. I think this section is useful to communicate that 1) it is different from WCAG 2.x and 2) that the guidance is derived from user needs.
Jonathan Avila This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. I like the structure and the use of sufficient and failure techniques through methods. One question arose though with the wording "functional outcomes". If the functional outcomes are determine based on testing methods and then score based on functional categories but without actual user testing - there could be a concern from a legal perspective that functional outcome of a pass could mean all users can access the site -- when in fact nothing will ever be fully accessible to everyone. What happens in a court of law when a company says the functional outcomes pass but a user with a disability not covered by the outcomes claims an issue? Today WCAG doesn't make any claim of functional use - if such a term is used is that potentially problematic as it's a strong assertion of actual use rather than just measurement to a standard? In the US ADA cases all come down to functional use. I assume that is why the term was chosen - can we get a legal expert to weigh in on this?
Todd Libby This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes.
Francis Storr This section can be published as it is now. The level of detail explaining how WCAG 3 is different from 2 is very useful.
Jake Abma 1.

'that the designed digital context' is somehow a bit "existing / prescriptive "ish/like" while we do more of a heuristic analysis and 'how designed digital context' seems more appropriate.

REPLACE:
We studied ways that the designed digital context may create barriers for people.

TO SOMETHING LIKE:
We studied ways how designed digital context may create barriers for people.

---------------------------------

2.

I do not get the example: "such as, people with limited vision want to use virtual reality"
(I think "Functional needs: is a statement that describes a specific gap in one’s ability" is much more clear by the way!)

REPLACE:
Functional needs: the mismatch between the user and the designed context (such as, people with limited vision want to use virtual reality)


TO SOMETHING LIKE:
Functional needs: the mismatch between the user and the designed context (such as, ...???)

---------------------------------

3.

Don't we need to use present tense in our documents? If so a sentence like the following should e changed:

REPLACE:
Functional outcomes: ...(such as, blind users understood which parts of Web content were headings)

TO SOMETHING LIKE:
Functional outcomes: ...(such as, blind users understand which parts of Web content are headings)

---------------------------------

4.

2.4 Functional Outcomes flow chart

The chart shows that testing is ONLY done on Methods, while the test should be done on the normative functional outcome.
I have multiple examples of why this is necessary but just a small example: you might have another Method for the Functional Outcome NOT present in WCAG but a fine one, Methods are not complete (yet) Or other possibilities.

The test must be for Normative Functional Outcome AND BASED ON THE WAY THE USER EXPECTS THE CONTENT, and if a method is present than this will test exactly that BUT more granular of technology specific.
I can explain this with a high level heading example test where the Methods will be different for different technologies (Like Web, Android, iOS etc.)

Methods might also overlap each other to adhere to a functional outcome while the scoring and the test should not be affected / changed (HTML Heading Vs. ARIA Heading role)

---------------------------------

5.

2.9 Tests

Also here, see point 4 above, the second part is a bit misleading as it should be possible to score the Functional Outcome without the Method as it is 'the higher layer'

REPLACE:
"Each Method includes information on how to score individual instances of the test, and how to score the Functional Outcome in an optional Conformance Claim."

TO SOMETHING LIKE:
"Each Method includes information on how to score individual instances of the test, and how to support and contribute the score of the Functional Outcome in an optional Conformance Claim."
Frederick Boland
Bruce Bailey This section can be published as it is now. This line: "Functional categories: the range of disabilities – @@ from blindness to limited movement @@ " need work.

The bit between @@ reads to me as if it is all-inclusive and that disability falls on a spectrum with blindness at one end and limited mobility at the other.

I think maybe it should be a parenthetical with examples. I would rather have the bit after the em dash it deleted entirely than remain as-is.
Sarah Horton This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. Revise the section so that the subsections are the same as what is indicated in the list of “layers” (or update the list of layers to reflect the sections). Also, make sure each section has a description, and use consistent terminology (and capitalization, e.g. “Functional Outcome”, “Method”) throughout the document.

Editorial changes would make the section more readable and clear, but are not required for public review.
Laura Carlson This section can be published as it is now.
Shari Butler This section can be published as it is now.
Janina Sajka This section can be published as it is now.
Peter Korn This section can be published as it is now. Is the graphic in section 2.4 Functional Outcomes appropriately described? The caption doesn't seem to capture the visual relationships conveyed in the image at "img/guidelines-structure.png"
Detlev Fischer This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. I find the overall structure not easy to understand right now. In some parts of the text, it appears that Guidelines are the main categories - they organise / group functional outcomes. The diagram has functional categories at the top. The description says " Functional Categories of disabilities reflect the diverse needs of users with disabilities." that is quite vague. It is unclear whether they map onto User Accessibility Needs (used, fior example in the EN 301 549) which are divided into disability categories. I have no idea what it means when I read "Functional Categories are used when reporting test results to reduce bias across different types of disabilities". Does it mean that they allow a filtering by type of disability?
The sentence "Guidelines are high level plain language summaries that address Functional Needs on specific topics, such as contrast, forms, readability, and more" suggest that they are another orthogonal way of organising Functional outcomes by type of content. My hunch is that functional outcomes are finegrained, i.e. address the success of a user with a particular need (say non-visual use) in using a particular type of content (say, a form). it is therefore a bit confusing to read "overall Functional Outcome" is that a higher-order aggregation of different atomic functional outcomes, or are functional outcomes less atomic than I thought they were?
So in all, from this text I am unclear what the overall architecture of WCAG 3.0 is going to look like.
Michael Gower This section can be published as it is now. In 2.1 I think I'd put the examples in quotes:
> Functional outcomes: the result (or outcome) of practices that reduce barriers and support ease of use in the designed context (such as, "blind users understood which parts of Web content were headings")
Guidelines: plain language advice on topics for adapting content to meet users’ functional needs (such as, "design voice input for people with limited movement")

As a general editorial comment, watch your agreement in places where subordinate clauses change the singular/plural but shouldn't affect the subject, as in:
The highest level of organization, Functional Categories of disabilities, reflect..."
should be "The highest level of organization, Functional Categories of disabilities, reflects..."

I think it would be an idea to have an illustration that shows the structure (functional categories, needs, etc).
David MacDonald
Shawn Lauriat This section can be published as it is now. …with "as it is now" to mean with the editorial changes discussed during AG WG's September 1 call.

4. Normative requirements

The Normative requirements section of WCAG 3.0 is normative, a short section just defining which aspects are normative.

Please review and comment if there are things you think should be changed.

NB: We do not have a question on the 'guidelines' yet, we will come back to that section later.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
This section can be published as it is now. 12
This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes.
This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD.

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

Details

Responder Normative requirementsComments
Jeanne F Spellman This section can be published as it is now. Different people have requested that we use RFC2119 key words. I think the use of them in the Conformance section is appropriate.
Jonathan Avila
Todd Libby This section can be published as it is now.
Francis Storr This section can be published as it is now.
Jake Abma This section can be published as it is now.
Frederick Boland
Bruce Bailey This section can be published as it is now. I do not like "non-normative". I would strongly prefer either: "This section is informative." or "This section is not normative." That this states "It [non-normative] is also called “Informative” acknowledges that term "non-normative" is not needed.
Sarah Horton This section can be published as it is now.
Laura Carlson This section can be published as it is now. I have had university students in my classes that the confuse the use of the term "non-normative" to mean "non-standard". It takes some explaining before they understand.

If we are going for plain language in WCAG 3.0, we may want to consider replacing "non-normative" throughout the document with something such as "informative" or "informative advice" or "best practice". For that matter, perhaps consider replacing "normative" with simply "required" or "requirement".
Shari Butler This section can be published as it is now.
Janina Sajka This section can be published as it is now.
Peter Korn This section can be published as it is now. I like Bruce's comment, but would take it one step further: "This section is informative (non-normative)." Let's try to keep the language of WCAG as understandable as possible.
Detlev Fischer This section can be published as it is now. Still unclear though in what way the functional outcomes will be normative and testable. Is "functional outcome" another word for SC, now with finer granularity? If not, how are they different?
Michael Gower
David MacDonald
Shawn Lauriat This section can be published as it is now. …with "as it is now" to mean with the editorial changes discussed during AG WG's September 1 call.

5. Evaluation

The Evaluation section of WCAG 3.0 is normative, and includes the testing and scoring content.

NB: This section will be updated by the morning on the 28th, if you are looking at it on the 27th August it might change.

Please review and comment if there are things you think should be changed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
This section can be published as it is now. 8
This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. 1
This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. 2

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

Details

Responder EvaluationComments
Jeanne F Spellman This section can be published as it is now. While I still have questions about some of the details of the Evaluation section, I think it is vitally important to get broad public comment about Evaluation and Conformance. I like how the concepts we agreed to in the Deep Dive have developed. I like how the Requirements have been included in the solution. "The devil is in the details", but I think this is a flexible structure we can build on. I want to do more validation testing. In a future WD, we may be able to simplify more of this section based on our experience. This is a difficult problem that we are trying to solve. I think this is a viable solution to send out for broad public comment.
Jonathan Avila
Todd Libby This section can be published as it is now.
Francis Storr This section can be published as it is now. The content is strong enough for publication, although there is a lot to still work on in this section. The editor's note should hopefully encourage the feedback we need to evolve the evaluation section.
Jake Abma This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. 1. Maybe I've missed some decisions during my vacation the last couple of weeks but I'm totally surprised that Bronze is WCAG A, AA and AAA like and Silver and Gold can only be reached with Holistic tests?

To reach the same quality for Silver or Gold for your application it's not a fact you need the Holistic tests as mentioned.
Also this is not feasible for lots of organizations AND the tests for functional outcomes may be more holistic while the tests for methods may be Technical / Traditional by nature.


"WCAG 3.0 includes two types of tests:
Traditional tests: Those are similar to the tests for A, AA, and AAA Success Criteria in WCAG 2.x. (These tests are used to reach a Bronze rating.)
Holistic tests: User-centered design methods, assistive technology testing, user and expert usability testing. (These tests are used to reach a Silver or Gold rating.)"

------------------------------

5.1 Testing

"WCAG 3.0 tests and scores Functional Outcomes. Functional Outcomes are written as testable criteria that allow testers to objectively determine if the content they are evaluating satisfies the criteria."

1. Exaclty!!! Not Methods while they should / can be used...

2. The "to objectively determine" is a bit difficult as we mention before 'Holistic Tests' which are Subjective by nature: "Holistic tests: User-centered design methods, assistive technology testing, user and expert usability testing. (These tests are used to reach a Silver or Gold rating.)

-----------------------------

2.

Testing is not per se done with automated testing, this is only an option / tool to use for testing and should say so.
We often test without automated testing for Web but specifically technologies / apps like iOS, Android but also with VR this might the the way to go.

REPLACE:
Testing the Functional Outcomes using the traditional tests involves a combination of automated testing and human evaluation.

TO SOMETHING LIKE:
Testing the Functional Outcomes using the traditional tests might involve a combination of automated testing and human evaluation.

UPDATE: in 5.1.1.1 I see the text: Traditional tests may be automated or manual (supporting my claim here)

-----------------------------

3. Sadly no time to go through the scoring in detail but we need prove that this works and have not seen such till now, all testing of the testing have shown we need lots of examples + data to see if it works this way.



Frederick Boland
Bruce Bailey This section can be published as it is now.
Sarah Horton This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. “View” is introduced in “How are tests scored?” section. The concept might be worth including an editors note to encourage feedback.

“Traditional Tests” as a term isn’t clearly defined, except by referencing WCAG 2.x tests, which assumes familiarity with WCAG 2.x tests. A few examples would help, as is done in the Critical Errors section.

Conformance levels are introduced at the beginning of this section without context (Bronze, Silver, Gold ratings). Could this be introduced earlier in the document, in the Introduction and/or Structure sections?

In the Scoring section (and the Critical Errors section) it might be good to clarify the outcome of critical errors on scoring, and to point out that any critical errors (called “failures” in the Scoring section) will result in a Very Poor (0) score for that functional outcome and no conformance rating for the scoped test of the content or product.

Editorial changes would make the section more readable and clear, but are not required for public review.
Laura Carlson This section can be published as it is now. Spelling error in "5.1.1.1 Traditional Tests":
"accessibilty" should be "accessibility"
Shari Butler This section can be published as it is now.
Janina Sajka This section can be published as it is now.
Peter Korn This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. +1 to Sarah - "view" is a very important, new concept in WCAG 3 and needs deeper definition and discussion. Same with "Traditional tests". [and like Sarah, I feel these should be updated, rather than must be, for FPWD]

Section 5.2 Evaluation of Scope notes that "Large web sites are impractical to evaluate comprehensively using anything beyond automated traditional tests", but then suggests the only way to address that is by setting the scope to be less than the entire site. Particularly given the deep analysis of the challenges with Accessibility Guidelines Conformance and Testing that we documented in https://www.w3.org/TR/accessibility-conformance-challenges/, the Evaluation Section needs to do more than suggest nothing need change for Bronze in Silver.

Finally, whether here, or in the Conformance section, it is very important that we give much clearer guidance ands show at least one example showing how a scoped set of processes and views that doesn't have zero failures would score, and whether that score could be at least 3.5 and thus achieve Bronze. This is too critical a scenario to leave unaddressed in a FPWD. We spent a lot of time over the last couple of months looking at detailed scoring examples, discussing when a portion of a view is on a critical path or not, etc. At least a first draft of that idea should be in the FPWD of Silver, so we can get comments and feedback.
Detlev Fischer
Michael Gower
David MacDonald I don't think we should use "traditional tests" as the former WCAG tests. The word Traditional these days has a negative connotation. It sounds stiff, old and not progressive. This is particularly true when its juxtaposed with the progressive, modern term "holistic" .

I would suggest WCAG 2 is holistic. I think we could use terms such as "base tests" and "Outcome tests"
Shawn Lauriat This section can be published as it is now. …with "as it is now" to mean with the editorial changes discussed during AG WG's September 1 call.

+1 to Jeanne's & Francis' notes.

6. Conformance

The Conformance section of WCAG 3.0 is normative, and outlines how to claim conformance.

Please review and comment if there are things you think should be changed.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
This section can be published as it is now. 6
This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. 1
This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. 3

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

Details

Responder ConformanceComments
Jeanne F Spellman This section can be published as it is now. I like how the Conformance has built on the details of the functional outcomes to arrive at Bronze, Silver, and Gold levels. The group that is working on Silver and Gold plan to have those details ready for the next Working Draft.
Jonathan Avila
Todd Libby This section can be published as it is now.
Francis Storr This section can be published as it is now. I like the Bronze, Silver, and Gold works well and I'm looking forward to seeing more detail on the holistic tests for Silver and Gold. Do we need a formal term for an application that doesn't conform to Bronze?
Jake Abma
Frederick Boland This section has several areas that should be updated, or include edtiorial notes. Conformance claim should include what hardware/software/assistive technology was used in interacting with the content mentioned in the claim
Bruce Bailey This section can be published as it is now.
Sarah Horton This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. Editorial changes are needed to make the section readable and clear. Also, make sure each section has a description (provide basic examples rather than TBD).
Laura Carlson
Shari Butler This section can be published as it is now.
Janina Sajka This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. This section is more complicated than it needs to be. It confuses a testing report with conformance claims.
Especially where conformance claims may be disuputed, no adjudication venue will care much about some date in the past. Rather, the interest will be in whether
the claim can be defended as of the time of examination. Furthermore, in order for a prior dated claim to be defensible, it would be necessary to store a deeply complete snapshot of all relevant technologies, which will impossible for large, complex sites.
Peter Korn This section has significant areas that must be updated before we publish the FPWD. See comments about conformance in the introduction - they also apply here (and should get more treatment here vs. in Introduction).

This section should also recognize and reference the challenges with accessibility guidelines conformance in https://www.w3.org/TR/accessibility-conformance-challenges/ and note which of those challenges the FPWD draft speaks to, and which we expect to address in future revisions.
Detlev Fischer
Michael Gower
David MacDonald
Shawn Lauriat This section can be published as it is now. …with "as it is now" to mean with the editorial changes discussed during AG WG's September 1 call.

More details on responses

  • Todd Libby: last responded on 1, September 2020 at 03:22 (UTC)
  • Francis Storr: last responded on 1, September 2020 at 06:32 (UTC)
  • Jake Abma: last responded on 1, September 2020 at 08:51 (UTC)
  • Frederick Boland: last responded on 1, September 2020 at 10:44 (UTC)
  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 1, September 2020 at 13:00 (UTC)
  • Sarah Horton: last responded on 1, September 2020 at 13:07 (UTC)
  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 1, September 2020 at 13:29 (UTC)
  • Shari Butler: last responded on 1, September 2020 at 13:56 (UTC)
  • Janina Sajka: last responded on 1, September 2020 at 14:05 (UTC)
  • Peter Korn: last responded on 1, September 2020 at 14:38 (UTC)
  • Detlev Fischer: last responded on 1, September 2020 at 14:56 (UTC)
  • Michael Gower: last responded on 1, September 2020 at 15:15 (UTC)
  • David MacDonald: last responded on 1, September 2020 at 16:43 (UTC)
  • Shawn Lauriat: last responded on 1, September 2020 at 18:24 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Gregg Vanderheiden
  2. Chris Wilson
  3. Lisa Seeman-Horwitz
  4. Janina Sajka
  5. Shawn Lawton Henry
  6. Katie Haritos-Shea
  7. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  8. Chus Garcia
  9. Steve Faulkner
  10. Patrick Lauke
  11. Gez Lemon
  12. Makoto Ueki
  13. Preety Kumar
  14. Georgios Grigoriadis
  15. Stefan Schnabel
  16. Romain Deltour
  17. Chris Blouch
  18. Jedi Lin
  19. Wilco Fiers
  20. Kimberly Patch
  21. Glenda Sims
  22. Ian Pouncey
  23. Alastair Campbell
  24. Léonie Watson
  25. David Sloan
  26. Mary Jo Mueller
  27. John Kirkwood
  28. Reinaldo Ferraz
  29. Matt Garrish
  30. Mike Gifford
  31. Loïc Martínez Normand
  32. Mike Pluke
  33. Justine Pascalides
  34. Chris Loiselle
  35. Tzviya Siegman
  36. Jan McSorley
  37. Sailesh Panchang
  38. Cristina Mussinelli
  39. John Rochford
  40. Sujasree Kurapati
  41. Jatin Vaishnav
  42. Sam Ogami
  43. Kevin White
  44. E.A. Draffan
  45. Paul Bohman
  46. JaEun Jemma Ku
  47. 骅 杨
  48. Victoria Clark
  49. Avneesh Singh
  50. Mitchell Evan
  51. biao liu
  52. Scott McCormack
  53. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  54. Rick Johnson
  55. David Swallow
  56. Aparna Pasi
  57. Gregorio Pellegrino
  58. Melanie Philipp
  59. Nicole Windmann
  60. Oliver Keim
  61. Gundula Niemann
  62. Ruoxi Ran
  63. Wendy Reid
  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. Jared Batterman
  88. Raja Kushalnagar
  89. Jan Williams
  90. Isabel Holdsworth
  91. Julia Chen
  92. Marcos Franco Murillo
  93. Yutaka Suzuki
  94. Azlan Cuttilan
  95. Jennifer Strickland
  96. Joe Humbert
  97. Ben Tillyer
  98. Charu Pandhi
  99. Poornima Badhan Subramanian
  100. Alain Vagner
  101. Roberto Scano
  102. Rain Breaw Michaels
  103. Kun Zhang
  104. Jaunita George
  105. Regina Sanchez
  106. Shawn Thompson
  107. Thomas Brunet
  108. Kenny Dunsin
  109. Jen Goulden
  110. Mike Beganyi
  111. Ronny Hendriks
  112. Olivia Hogan-Stark
  113. Rashmi Katakwar
  114. Julie Rawe
  115. Duff Johnson
  116. Laura Miller
  117. Will Creedle
  118. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  119. Marie Csanady
  120. Meenakshi Das
  121. Perrin Anto
  122. Rachele DiTullio
  123. Jan Jaap de Groot
  124. Rebecca Monteleone
  125. Ian Kersey
  126. Peter Bossley
  127. Anastasia Lanz
  128. Michael Keane
  129. Chiara De Martin
  130. Giacomo Petri
  131. Andrew Barakat
  132. Devanshu Chandra
  133. Xiao (Helen) Zhou
  134. Joe Lamyman
  135. Bryan Trogdon
  136. Mary Ann (MJ) Jawili
  137. 禹佳 陶
  138. 锦澄 王
  139. Stephen James
  140. Jay Mullen
  141. Thorsten Katzmann
  142. Tony Holland
  143. Kent Boucher
  144. Abbey Davis
  145. Phil Day
  146. Julia Kim
  147. Michelle Lana
  148. David Williams
  149. Mikayla Thompson
  150. Catherine Droege
  151. James Edwards
  152. Eric Hind
  153. Quintin Balsdon
  154. Mario Batušić
  155. David Cox
  156. Sazzad Mahamud
  157. Katy Brickley
  158. Kimberly Sarabia
  159. Corey Hinshaw
  160. Ashley Firth
  161. Daniel Harper-Wain
  162. Kiara Stewart
  163. DJ Chase
  164. Suji Sreerama
  165. Lori Oakley
  166. David Middleton
  167. Alyssa Priddy
  168. Young Choi
  169. Nichole Bui
  170. Julie Romanowski
  171. Eloisa Guerrero
  172. Daniel Henderson-Ede
  173. George Kuan
  174. YAPING LIN
  175. Justin Wilson
  176. Leonard Beasley
  177. Tiffany Burtin
  178. Shane Dittmar
  179. Nayan Padrai
  180. Niamh Kelly
  181. Matt Argomaniz Matthew Argomaniz
  182. Frankie Wolf
  183. Kimberly McGee
  184. Ahson Rana
  185. Carolina Crespo
  186. humor927 humor927
  187. Samantha McDaniel
  188. Matthäus Rojek
  189. Phong Tony Le
  190. Bram Janssens
  191. Graham Ritchie
  192. Aleksandar Cindrikj
  193. Jeroen Hulscher
  194. Alina Vayntrub
  195. Marco Sabidussi
  196. John Toles
  197. Jeanne Erickson Cooley
  198. Theo Hale
  199. Gert-Jan Vercauteren
  200. Karla Rubiano
  201. Aashutosh K
  202. Hidde de Vries
  203. Julian Kittelson-Aldred
  204. Roland Buss
  205. Aditya Surendranath
  206. Avon Kuo
  207. Elizabeth Patrick
  208. Tj Squires
  209. Nat Tarnoff
  210. Illai Zeevi
  211. Filippo Zorzi
  212. Gleidson Ramos
  213. Mike Pedersen
  214. Rachael Yomtoob
  215. Oliver Habersetzer
  216. Irfan Mukhtar

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.