W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Writing Testable WCAG 3.0 Outcomes

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2021-12-02 to 2021-12-07.

10 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Approve Writing Testable WCAG 3.0 Outcomes for internal use

1. Approve Writing Testable WCAG 3.0 Outcomes for internal use

Do you approve of the Writing Testable WCAG 3.0 Outcomes for internal use?

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Agree	7
Agree with the following changes	3
Something Else

Details

Responder	Approve Writing Testable WCAG 3.0 Outcomes for internal use	Comments
Jaunita George	Agree
Andrew Somers	Agree with the following changes	This is good, and I expect it's going toi be a living document for at least some time. One thing I didn't see (and perhaps it is not in scope for this document) is guidance relating to, for instance, how much of a particular page or view needs to be tested. As an example for visual contrast, how much of the text actually needs to be tested? Just a representative sample? Where we left it last, it was to take an example of the smallest and lowest contrast font on the page as the test subject. But as the research continues and things like non-text elements are being brought into the mix, these things become a little bit more complicated. Is there a document that is addressing the extent of testing relative to a particular page or view?
Laura Carlson	Agree	It is a good start that I suspect will evolve. Thanks to Wilco and all who worked on this document.
Rachael Bradley Montgomery	Agree
Mary Jo Mueller	Agree	I do have some very minor editorial changes and one suggestion to give more detail on how to handle definitions (which you can find in the Writing Testable WCAG 3.0 Outcomes document). The one substantive comment I had was regarding a proliferation of definitions in W3C standards as well as in international standards (like ISO, ETSI, CEN/CENELEC and so on). Need to ensure that definitions are harmonized, as that can potentially add to nuances between standards and thus confusion.
Shawn Lauriat	Agree
Sarah Horton	Agree
Jeanne F Spellman	Agree	This is a helpful start on making Outcomes more reliable and testable. It is probably going to evolve as we start using it to rewrite the existing Outcomes and new Outcomes in the future. 12/6/2021 in response to Andrew Somers: Representative sampling is outside the scope of this work. The Conformance Options subgroup is working on that issue. 12/6/2021 in response to Mary Jo. We discussed this in a meeting and agreed to add more examples of glossaries to align with.
Bruce Bailey	Agree with the following changes	Commenting to +1 my understanding that this is a WIP (as noted by Andy, Laura, and Jeanne). One editorial question I have is that early in the doc, is this: "Writing testable outcomes is a highly iterative process." Later on is this section: Step 6: Get feedback, and iterate. This is all well and good! But after Step 6, the document continues for three more pages (four more sections). It was not obviously apparent to me how iteration applies to these four sections. Logically, I think they belong at the top of the document, but that would be bad since that pushes the main (and more important) content so far down. Could/should these four section be formatted to be part of an appendix? There might also be a single sentence added to the introduction which incorporates hypertext links to each section.
Jonathan Avila	Agree with the following changes	1. Regarding taking out things that are difficult to automatic - we need to be careful to not take out things that are needed for user and are realistic. 2. We don't discuss what is realistic or not - this has historically caused criteria to not be accepted because it wasn't achievable. We should look to make sure that things are achievable.

More details on responses

Jaunita George: last responded on 2, December 2021 at 23:45 (UTC)
Andrew Somers: last responded on 5, December 2021 at 17:44 (UTC)
Laura Carlson: last responded on 6, December 2021 at 14:19 (UTC)
Rachael Bradley Montgomery: last responded on 6, December 2021 at 20:23 (UTC)
Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 6, December 2021 at 21:24 (UTC)
Shawn Lauriat: last responded on 6, December 2021 at 22:00 (UTC)
Sarah Horton: last responded on 7, December 2021 at 13:18 (UTC)
Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 7, December 2021 at 14:38 (UTC)
Bruce Bailey: last responded on 7, December 2021 at 15:36 (UTC)
Jonathan Avila: last responded on 7, December 2021 at 18:26 (UTC)