W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Updating the WCAG 3 Editor's Draft

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2023-04-07 to 2023-04-13.

10 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Update the WCAG 3 Editor's Draft - Editorial Changes
Updating Editor Draft - Substantive Changes

1. Update the WCAG 3 Editor's Draft - Editorial Changes

We are working towards publishing an updated working draft. The first step is to update the Editor's Draft.

Please review the changes proposed in PR 681 and the draft preview for editorial changes.

Are any editorial fixes needed?

Note: Editorial fixes will be made before the meeting that we discuss this survey. This question is only for editorial fixes. Substantive comments, changes, and questions should be listed in the next question.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
yes, the editorial fixes needed are listed in the comments field	5
no editorial fixes are needed at this time.	5

Details

Responder	Update the WCAG 3 Editor's Draft - Editorial Changes	Comments
Andrew Somers	yes, the editorial fixes needed are listed in the comments field	In stead of the paragraph “They address various types of web….” I suggest the following: The guidelines apply to all forms of web content, including static, dynamic, streaming, and interactive content, visual and aural media, virtual and augmented reality, and alternative access presentation and control..
Jeanne F Spellman	no editorial fixes are needed at this time.	Although I am happy to fix any that others find.
Shawn Lauriat	no editorial fixes are needed at this time.
Jaunita George	no editorial fixes are needed at this time.
Jennifer Strickland	yes, the editorial fixes needed are listed in the comments field	Is it a typo that there are double brackets around these words? WCAG 3.0 is a successor to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2 [[WCAG22]] and previous versions, but does not deprecate WCAG 2.X. It will also incorporate content from and partially extend User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [[UAAG20]] and Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [[ATAG20]]. These earlier versions provided a flexible model that kept them relevant for over 10 years. However, changing technology and changing needs of people with disabilities have led to the need for a new model to address content accessibility more comprehensively and flexibly. In the following section, should the commas be removed from the end of each of the bullets between the first and last? This pattern continues throughout. The commas at the end clutter the content and make it harder to read, looks old-fashioned, while common in legal documents. I don't know if W3C is using a particular style guide, but everything I'm familiar with recommends not using a comma at the end. Next steps include: • Get feedback from designers, developers, and other communities on wording choice. • Finalize names and descriptions of scope and tests, • Develop detailed examples of methods and test, • Test the accuracy, reliability, repeatability, etc. of this various models using these approaches, • Address all github issues under test types and terminology milestone.
Laura Carlson	no editorial fixes are needed at this time.
Todd Libby	no editorial fixes are needed at this time.
Lori Oakley	yes, the editorial fixes needed are listed in the comments field	The document needs to have consistency in how WCAG 3.0 is written. Currently, it is referred to as "WCAG3" or "WCAG3.0" or "WCAG 3.0" in the various sections.
Mary Jo Mueller	yes, the editorial fixes needed are listed in the comments field	I've noted potential editorial updates in comments on the PR, but wouldn't hold up progress toward publishing.
Gregg Vanderheiden	yes, the editorial fixes needed are listed in the comments field	1) most "how to meet" links are 404 would be good for them to either not be links or have them all go to one page that says "under construction" or "this link will lead to a page explaining how to meet this specific outcome

2. Updating Editor Draft - Substantive Changes

We are working towards publishing an updated working draft. The first step is to update the Editor's Draft.

Please review the changes proposed in PR 681 and the draft preview for substantive changes.

Do you approve updating the Editor's Draft?

Note: Updating the Working Draft is a separate conversation. Not everything in the Editor's Draft may be included in the updated Working Draft.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Yes, I approve updating the editor's draft after the editorial fixes are made	7
Yes, update the editor's draft but capture the additional outstanding questions listed in the comments within editor's notes	2
No, we must address the substantive issues or concerns with the overall direction listed in the comments before updating	1

Details

Responder	Updating Editor Draft - Substantive Changes	Comments
Andrew Somers	Yes, update the editor's draft but capture the additional outstanding questions listed in the comments within editor's notes	Right now the outcomes are listed in alphabetical order, a note should indicate that they will eventually be grouped by common associations, i.e. “substantially visual or aural or cognitive or motor” etc.
Jeanne F Spellman	Yes, I approve updating the editor's draft after the editorial fixes are made
Shawn Lauriat	Yes, I approve updating the editor's draft after the editorial fixes are made
Jaunita George	Yes, I approve updating the editor's draft after the editorial fixes are made
Jennifer Strickland	Yes, I approve updating the editor's draft after the editorial fixes are made
Laura Carlson	Yes, I approve updating the editor's draft after the editorial fixes are made
Todd Libby	Yes, I approve updating the editor's draft after the editorial fixes are made
Lori Oakley	Yes, update the editor's draft but capture the additional outstanding questions listed in the comments within editor's notes
Mary Jo Mueller	Yes, I approve updating the editor's draft after the editorial fixes are made	Any substantive changes (if any) I noted in the comments on the PR. Would not hold up publication due to any of my comments.
Gregg Vanderheiden	No, we must address the substantive issues or concerns with the overall direction listed in the comments before updating	There is a LOT of good content here that needs to get out for comment. There are a few things that need to be addressed though before we do. For each of these I make a SUGGESTION to make it easier to see how we can get this done and out expeditiously. (e.g. no problem cited without one way to solve it). 1) this refers to a document called "REQUIREMENTS for WCAG 3.0" This implies that WCAG 3.0 MUST meet all these requirements. I see problems with this. The requirement doc should be a "recommendations doc" if it is coming from a task force. it would have to be an AG document to be a requirements document on the AG. SUGGESTIONS: Either we rename the document 'Recommendations..." OR we refer to it AS recommendations even if it says requirements in its tite OR we take a formal vote of the AG to accept all these suggestions AS requirements we must follow. 2) in the requirements document is says that WCAG 3.0 will have a broader scope than WCAG 2.0 and 2.1. and include all types of digital content. As long as this is all within the AG Working group charter -- ok. But this looks like it requires WCAG 3.0 to go broader than what AG is chartered to do. If true - this needs to be fixed. IF not - then clarification of the AG charter scope is helpful if it goes beyond web content and user agents. SUGGESTION: Determine if everything listed in the SILVER REQUIREMENTS document is within the AG charter -- and if not - take them out -- and if so -- then add language to intro to say that the guidelines are being expanded in scope. it sort of gets close to saying it but then doesnt. it should if that is our intent and it is in scope of AG 3) it states "In addition to this section, the Guidelines, Testing, and Conformance sections in WCAG 3.0 provide normative content and define requirements" Tests are not normative. they are informative. Also Testing is not even in this document but in the how to document. Finallly, this says "in addition to this section-- and this section contains the guidelines -- they are not in another section SUGGESTION: change to "This section contains the Guidelines (informative) as well as the Outcomes (normative) which will be grouped under the guidelines. The conformance and definitions are the other normative parts of this document. Methods, which includes Testing and techniques (both of which are informative) are contained in a separate HOW TO document that is informative and updated over time as technology changes." 4)The guidelines section header reads: "Guidelines This section (with its subsections) provides requirements which must be followed to conform to the specification, meaning it is normative." PROBLEM: This seems to imply that guidelines are normative. They are informative. Only outcomes and definitions are normative per previous discussions. SUGGESTION: same as previous point 5) How to meet links are provided for guidelines. You don't meet guidelines - they are not normative. You meet the OUTCOMES under the guidelines. the guidelines are kind of like headers -- or broad topics under which there are Outcomes - that you meet. [ You can't even say that you meet a guideline by meeting the outcomes -- since the guidelines are very broad and meeting the Outcomes only meets some of the broad guideline text/goals ] SUGGESTION -- you remove all of the Learn how to meet guideline links 6) Under Conformance I see the following list of objectives" 1. Develop a model that encourages websites to continue to improve accessibility (vs. stopping at the previous AA level); 2. Better reflect the lived experience of people with disabilities, who successfully use sites that have some content that does not meet WCAG 2.0 AA, or who encounter barriers with sites that meet WCAG 2.0 AA; 3. Allow for bugs and oversight by content authors, provided the impact of them upon users with disabilities is not substantial. PROBLEM: these are speculative and not everyone would agree. But they are listed above the "we are exploring " text so it looks like these are decided on. SUGGESTION: I think this is ok but these should be BELOW the "exploring different approaches" paragraph not above them. These statements include serious problems -- and are ok to include as comments so people in the field can comment -- but they should appear as established, with experimental text only starting below them. 7) Outcomes and Tests -- This makes it sound like Tests are part of conformance -- and they are not. Tests are informative and in a completely different document from the guidelines. And you cannot have the conformance section of a normative document refer to another non-normative document. SUGGESTION -- remove Tests from the WCAG3 document and instead include a pointer to a separate document talking about tests where we put all this tests information. Instead talk about Tests in the intro where you a short paragraph that says something like "The WCAG 3.0 Guidelines document contains Guidelines (informative) and Outcomes, Defintions and Conformance (which are normative). The WCAG 3.0 Guidlines document is designed to work in close integration with the (informative) HOW TO document that contains METHODS for each outcome including tests and techniques for each. Because the HOW TO is informative, it can be easily and continually updated as technologies evolve and new testing and implementation technologies and techniques are created." Maybe also add a paragraph "While reviewing the WCAG 3.0 guidelines the reader is highly encouraged to read the accompanying HOW TO document and the followign documents describing the approaches being explored for testing. {and link to a doc that has the text currently in section 4 here} 8) 4.1.1.1 reads "4.1.1.1 Types of tests WCAG 3.0 includes two (2) types of tests which are evaluated:" etc PROBLEM: WCAG3 doesn't include any tests. As described in the paragraphs just above - the tests are part of the METHODS in the HOW TO document SUGGESTION: see above 9) Pre-assessment checks Section: PROBLEM - This also doesnt look like it belongs in the Guidelines document. SUGGESTION: We put out a GUIDE TO WCAG3.0 DOCUMENTS and send out for review -- and in THAT document -- we talk in detail about how the Guideline doc works with the other documents. This is where all the testing can go -- and this pre-assessment checks section. 10) USER GENERATED CONTENT -- this is not part of the guidelines. This is part of policy and should be in a separate policy thoughts document. This is not 'what is accessible' but what should an author have to make accessible or not. that is policy. other thing that go in that document would be - user generated content - 3rd party components in content - bugs and reasonable time to address - small business - sudden large tranches of content - archival material - sampling - automated vs manual testing none of these are accessibility questions -- but questions of what should be required to be accessible or not or when. These are policy questions and not part of what is accessible or not. SUGGESTION: Create a new informative document called "Observations and thoughts on use of WCAG 3.0 in policy and regulations" and start collecting working group thoughts and observations on these topics there.