W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire WCAG 2.2 - Accessible Auth

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2021-06-21 to 2021-09-21.

17 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. AA and AAA text for Accessible Authentication
  2. Note for WCAG 2.2
  3. DONE: Recognizing common objects path forward
  4. DONE: Adobe Comment on 3.3.7 Accessible Authentication #1885
  5. DONE: Add requirement / control to "show password" for end-users #1912
  6. Done: Ensuring copy-paste is not blocked #1878
  7. DONE: is it acceptable to only support niche, propriety, OS specific, and potentially inaccessible methods? #1899
  8. DONE: Are system-level tests out of scope? Are PINs and Passwords synonymous? #1900
  9. DONE: supporting copy-paste, example with memorable information, and specific characters #1901
  10. DONE: Clarification on USB-based 2FA #1903
  11. DEFUNCT: Adobe Comment on 3.3.7 Accessible Authentication #1885
  12. DONE: confusion about "paste" #1855
  13. DONE: Other Methods #1879

1. AA and AAA text for Accessible Authentication

In Issue 1902 wardav asks about the definition of a common object. Last week we agreed to move forward with an AA and AAA SC.

PR 2042 has the AA and AAA version and updates to the understanding documents.

Do you:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the updates 3
Agree with the updates with adjustments 1
Something else

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

Details

Responder AA and AAA text for Accessible AuthenticationComments
Ben Tillyer
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Aimee Ubbink
Wilco Fiers
Todd Libby
David MacDonald
Stefan Schnabel
Patrick Lauke
Charles Adams
Bruce Bailey
John Kirkwood
Michael Gower
Laura Carlson Agree with the updates
Rain Breaw Michaels Agree with the updates
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Agree with the updates
Gundula Niemann
Alastair Campbell Agree with the updates with adjustments For the AAA understanding document, can we remove the bits which are identical to the AA version, and just link across at the top (like focus-appearance (enhanced) does).
Also, I don't think we should remove the note under the current one (starting "Examples of mechanisms include: 1)...") as that was agreed previously.

I've created an update to that branch here: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2046

That PR:
- Removes most of the 'intent' content in the AAA understanding doc.
- Slightly re-structures the SC text (separating the exception).
- Clarifies the new note.
- Includes the previous note that had been removed.

2. Note for WCAG 2.2

Last week we discussed adding a note to WCAC 2.2 to point readers to the coga related AAA criteria. A draft is below.

Note: While WCAG AA is typically used as the standard for conformance, it is important to note that important solutions to barriers experienced by people with cognitive and learning disabilities are included in the AAA criteria. In order to support people with cognitive and learning disabilities, please consider also supporting [list coga related AAA SC]. Additional non-normative design guidance is available at Marking Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities..

Do you:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with this note 2
Agree with the note with adjustments 1
Something else 2

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

Details

Responder Note for WCAG 2.2Comments
Ben Tillyer
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Aimee Ubbink
Wilco Fiers
Todd Libby
David MacDonald
Stefan Schnabel
Patrick Lauke
Charles Adams
Bruce Bailey
John Kirkwood
Michael Gower
Laura Carlson Agree with this note
Rain Breaw Michaels Agree with the note with adjustments Here are the ones that I identified that likely should be included in the list:

1.3.6 Identify Purpose
1.4.7 Low or No Background Audio
1.4.8 Visual Presentation
1.4.9 Images of Text
2.2.3 No Timing
2.2.4 Interruptions
2.2.5 Re-authenticating
2.2.6 Timeouts
2.3.2 Three Flashes
2.3.3 Animation from Interactions
2.4.8 Location
2.4.9 Link Purpose (Link Only)
2.4.10 Section Headings
3.1.3 Unusual Words
3.1.4 Abbreviations
3.1.5 Reading Level
3.1.6 Pronunciation
3.2.5 Change on Request
3.3.5 Help
3.3.6 Error Prevention (All)

Rachael Bradley Montgomery Agree with this note
Gundula Niemann Something else no decision from my side, just a wording remark:
Should "Marking Content Usable ..." say "Making Content Usable ..."?
If this is not the case, please explain what is meant by marking a content usable, as I assume it does not mean just claiming it is usable.
Alastair Campbell Something else We should specify where the note would go, and looking through the top-sections it appears it would go under the "WCAG 2 Layers of guidance" section. There is already a paragraph there that starts "Note that even content that conforms at the highest level (AAA) will not be accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of disability, particularly in the cognitive, language, and learning areas...."

I suggest we update that paragraph / section with the new content. E.g.

> "Note that while WCAG AA is typically used as the standard for conformance, it is important to note that important solutions to barriers experienced by people with cognitive and learning disabilities are included in the AAA criteria. Even content that conforms at the highest level (AAA) will not be accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of disability, particularly in the cognitive, language, and learning areas. Authors are encouraged to consider the full range of techniques, including the advisory techniques, and the _Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities_ note."

I don't think we should add a list of particular SCs at the top:
- It is just adding more repetitive content at the top, making it further to scroll to get to the content they would point to;
- It raises the question of: Why we don't list AAA SCs for other disability groups?
- The COGA-usable doc seems a more effective & wider scoped doc compared to the AAA SCs, at least for COGA issues.

3. DONE: Recognizing common objects path forward

In Issue 1902 wardav asks about the definition of a common object. This has led to a long discussion about what a cognitive function test includees and which tests should be excepted within this SC.

Rain has been looking into the topic with the COGA task force and they have concluded that:

  • Recognizing common objects is a cognitive function task so should be treated as an exception rather than the way its currently handled
  • Requiring that users recognize common objects (as picture based CAPTCHA for example currently does) to log in presents a sometimes insurmountable barrier for people with cognitive disabilities
  • It is unlikely all members will OK an SC that removes CAPTCHA as an option for authentication because of the current lack of alternatives.

We see several ways forward. Please weigh in with your preferred way forward.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Create an AA level SC that does not allow for recognizing common objects and audio (picture based CAPTCHA for example would not pass this SC)
Create a AA level SC that allows for recognizing common objects and audio, plus an SC at AAA that does not allow for recognizing common objects 7
Remove this SC from 2.2 2

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

Details

Responder DONE: Recognizing common objects path forwardComments
Ben Tillyer
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Aimee Ubbink
Wilco Fiers
Todd Libby
David MacDonald Remove this SC from 2.2 I am oscillating between removing and allowing a limited version at AA. Historically, in WCAG, we have tried not introduce an SC that doesn't have a clear and mature solution. I am struggling with the lack of mature options.

Also, security and accessibility have always had competing requirements. Accessibility attempts to allow as many users as possible to use the content, and security attempts to allow as few as necessary to use the content. Audio bootleggers used to go to concerts as people with hearing loss to haves their FM systems plugged into the mixing board for a direct recording.

I could live with a limited SC at AA that has clear and mature solutions.
Stefan Schnabel Create a AA level SC that allows for recognizing common objects and audio, plus an SC at AAA that does not allow for recognizing common objects
Patrick Lauke Create a AA level SC that allows for recognizing common objects and audio, plus an SC at AAA that does not allow for recognizing common objects
Charles Adams Create a AA level SC that allows for recognizing common objects and audio, plus an SC at AAA that does not allow for recognizing common objects I'm concerned with doing this at the end of our WCAG 2.2 cycle, and if this is something for which others share my concerns, I'd prefer we remove it.
Bruce Bailey Create a AA level SC that allows for recognizing common objects and audio, plus an SC at AAA that does not allow for recognizing common objects FWIW i would be concerned that a AA level SC that does not allow for recognizing common objects and audio would be a blocker for regulators.

Does the AA SC that allows for recognizing common objects and audio require that USERS have the CHOICE OF EITHER visual or audio CAPTCHA?

(( Or is dual modality of CAPTCHA required in another SC? ))
John Kirkwood
Michael Gower Remove this SC from 2.2 This contradicts the existing Understanding document:
> Recognizing common objects, or a picture the user has provided, would not be a cognitive function test.

It seems like we have a moving target on what constitutes a cognitive function test. If we can't settle on that, the SC is at risk.
Laura Carlson Create a AA level SC that allows for recognizing common objects and audio, plus an SC at AAA that does not allow for recognizing common objects
Rain Breaw Michaels Create a AA level SC that allows for recognizing common objects and audio, plus an SC at AAA that does not allow for recognizing common objects
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Gundula Niemann
Alastair Campbell Create a AA level SC that allows for recognizing common objects and audio, plus an SC at AAA that does not allow for recognizing common objects I think that adding the AAA version is actually the smallest change in substance. It clarifies something that had been a little buried in the definition, and signals what the preferred option is (don't use those tests that are excepted).

4. DONE: Adobe Comment on 3.3.7 Accessible Authentication #1885

AWK raised issue 1885 with a question and comment.

There is an updated response changing the reason that WebAuthN is considered to pass.

Do you:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the response 4
Agree with the response with adjustment (comment) 2
Propose a different response (comment)

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

Details

Responder DONE: Adobe Comment on 3.3.7 Accessible Authentication #1885Comments
Ben Tillyer
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Aimee Ubbink
Wilco Fiers
Todd Libby Agree with the response
David MacDonald
Stefan Schnabel
Patrick Lauke Agree with the response
Charles Adams
Bruce Bailey Agree with the response
John Kirkwood Agree with the response with adjustment (comment) Agree with Rachel's adjustment
Michael Gower
Laura Carlson Agree with the response
Rain Breaw Michaels
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Agree with the response with adjustment (comment) I agree with the intent but the following sentence is not particularly clear: "For the time-out during authentication with WebauthN (spec link), the time-out does not loose anything, you simply re-start the authentication, it is no more of a step than if there were a pop-over warning you of the time out."

I suggest the following edit: "For the time-out during authentication with WebauthN (spec link), the time-out does not loose anything, you simply re-start the authentication. Restarting is the same number of steps as a pop-over warning you of the time out."
Gundula Niemann
Alastair Campbell

5. DONE: Add requirement / control to "show password" for end-users #1912

philljenkins asked that we add a new requirement to Accessible Authentication in Issue 1921.

The Cognitive Task Force recognise that it is a new requirement, but requested it be mentioned in the understanding document.

PR 1940 was created to include such a sentence in the understanding document.

Do you think we should:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Include the new paragraph 6
Include the new paragraph with adjustment 2
Not include the new paragraph.
Something else 3

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

Details

Responder DONE: Add requirement / control to "show password" for end-users #1912Comments
Ben Tillyer
Andrew Kirkpatrick Include the new paragraph
Aimee Ubbink Include the new paragraph
Wilco Fiers
Todd Libby Include the new paragraph
David MacDonald
Stefan Schnabel
Patrick Lauke Include the new paragraph with adjustment Just to clarify (as the survey question here seems to imply otherwise): this is *not* a requirement, as the sentence makes clear this is just a nice-to-have best practice *not* required for conformance. in that light, I'm ok with having this included. I would, however, front-load the sentence to make it clear right away that "As a best practice, ..."
Charles Adams
Bruce Bailey Include the new paragraph
John Kirkwood Something else In alignment with Rain's adjustment.
Michael Gower
Laura Carlson Include the new paragraph
Rain Breaw Michaels Something else COGA (special thanks to Abi James and John Rochford) created the proposed adjustment to the current language in the pull request:

"Another factor that can contribute to the cognitive load when authenticating is hiding characters when typing, such as in a password field. Providing a feature to optionally show a password can improve the chance of success for people with cognitive disabilities or those who have difficulties with accurately typing. However, this support mechanism on its own does not remove all of the cognitive task when transcribing characters."

Our concerns with the current PR, which the proposed language above addresses:

1. After re-reading the functional definition of a cognitive function test (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-cognitive-function-test), we realized that transcribing characters is very clearly included as a cognitive function test.
2. To say that "Password visibility is ... a good way of reducing the cognitive load, so including a feature to optionally show the password is very helpful" minimizes the severity of the impact for some individuals. We are concerned some may read this to think that this type of support may be sufficient to support all individuals who experience difficulty with transcription.
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Something else I support adding in both Rain and Patrick's adjustments
Gundula Niemann Include the new paragraph
Alastair Campbell Include the new paragraph with adjustment Riffing on Rain's update, I'm suggesting this:

> Another factor that can contribute to cognitive load is hiding characters when typing. Although this criterion requires that users do not have to type in (transcribe) a password, there are scenarios where that is necessary such as creating a password to be saved by a password manager. Providing a feature to optionally show a password can improve the chance of success for people with cognitive disabilities or those who have difficulties with accurately typing.

There might be a better example, but it is clearer about the requirement.

6. Done: Ensuring copy-paste is not blocked #1878

Ben asked in issue 1878 whether the normative text supported that copy-paste must not be blocked.

It is possible for authors to provide another mechanism, so PR 1960 refines that text in the understanding doc.

Do you:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the change 7
Agree with the change with adjustment
Something else

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

Details

Responder Done: Ensuring copy-paste is not blocked #1878Comments
Ben Tillyer
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Aimee Ubbink
Wilco Fiers
Todd Libby Agree with the change
David MacDonald
Stefan Schnabel
Patrick Lauke Agree with the change
Charles Adams
Bruce Bailey Agree with the change
John Kirkwood Agree with the change
Michael Gower
Laura Carlson Agree with the change
Rain Breaw Michaels Agree with the change
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Agree with the change
Gundula Niemann
Alastair Campbell

7. DONE: is it acceptable to only support niche, propriety, OS specific, and potentially inaccessible methods? #1899

@wardav asked in issue 1899 whether it is theoretically possible for a theoretical user to authenticate themselves without a cognitive test using a very niche method.

The proposed response basically says: no, it would need to work in practice.

We discussed this last week, but need more people to comment in the survey and perhaps propose a different response.

Do you:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the response 3
Agree with the response with adjustment (comment)
Propose a different response (comment) 2

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

Details

Responder DONE: is it acceptable to only support niche, propriety, OS specific, and potentially inaccessible methods? #1899Comments
Ben Tillyer Agree with the response
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Aimee Ubbink
Wilco Fiers Propose a different response (comment) I don't think arguing "no, because accessibility support" is right here. I think a better response would just be to say that non-web technologies may be involved, and that while we certainly hope organisations won't burden PwD with extra costs, WCAG is limited to web technologies only. It can extend its scope to include non-web devices, or set requirements for availability / cost of those.
Todd Libby Agree with the response
David MacDonald
Stefan Schnabel
Patrick Lauke Propose a different response (comment) "In theory a site could claim conformance with just a niche device/setup allowing for authentication, but it would not fit the generally accepted use of "accessibility supported"."

not sure i'd agree here. if the "niche device/setup" is "technology [that] is [...] widely-distributed [... and] accessibility supported" per https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-accessibility-supported (which doesn't mean free, or based on open standards, but just that it's "widely distributed"), should it not pass this? (reminded here of the argument about "there's this extension for browsers that lets you navigate by headings ... sure, nobody's heard of it, but it's 'widely distributed'" that we had not so long ago)

"no website can implement facial recognition" websites have access to APIs to hook into webcams, directly from JavaScript. so this is in fact possible - while technically and computationally quite complex. so this part of the answer needs some work.
Charles Adams
Bruce Bailey Agree with the response
John Kirkwood
Michael Gower
Laura Carlson
Rain Breaw Michaels
Rachael Bradley Montgomery proposed response: "While technically, a specialized technique would pass we do not recommend that approach. Providing a commonly used, widely available approach better supports use."
Gundula Niemann
Alastair Campbell

8. DONE: Are system-level tests out of scope? Are PINs and Passwords synonymous? #1900

In issue Issue 1900 wardav seems to confuse the site-set password with the user's password/pin for the device.

There is a response in the thread, and a very simple change in the understanding document in PR 1909.

Do you:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the response and change 4
Agree with the response and change, with adjustment
Propose something else 1

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

Details

Responder DONE: Are system-level tests out of scope? Are PINs and Passwords synonymous? #1900Comments
Ben Tillyer Agree with the response and change
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Aimee Ubbink
Wilco Fiers
Todd Libby Agree with the response and change
David MacDonald
Stefan Schnabel
Patrick Lauke
Charles Adams
Bruce Bailey Agree with the response and change
John Kirkwood Agree with the response and change
Michael Gower
Laura Carlson
Rain Breaw Michaels
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Gundula Niemann Propose something else A system level PIN or password also is a cognitive function test. providing an alternative is out of scope for a app author, yet it is in scope for the operating system provider.
Alastair Campbell

9. DONE: supporting copy-paste, example with memorable information, and specific characters #1901

In Issue 1901 wardav asks whether certain authentication features should count as a 'cognitive function test'.

The response basically says no, they are cog-fun-tests, but if user-agents did start supporting those then that might count as a 'mechanism'.

Do you:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the response 2
Agree with the response with adjustment
Propose a different response 1

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

Details

Responder DONE: supporting copy-paste, example with memorable information, and specific characters #1901Comments
Ben Tillyer
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Aimee Ubbink
Wilco Fiers
Todd Libby Agree with the response
David MacDonald
Stefan Schnabel
Patrick Lauke
Charles Adams
Bruce Bailey Agree with the response
John Kirkwood
Michael Gower
Laura Carlson
Rain Breaw Michaels
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Gundula Niemann Propose a different response Indeed I see answering such questions as cognitive function tests. Yet they need a different solution than passwords, for example because storing them with the password does not make sense with their purpose.
Part of the problem is for example the missing AI. 'Where have you met your spouse?' Have I met him 'in New York', or did I just type 'New York'? I think this is a wide new field.
Alastair Campbell

10. DONE: Clarification on USB-based 2FA #1903

In Issue 1903 JamesCatt appears to mis-understand what the 'examples' section of the understanding doc is trying to do.

Alastair added a proposed response, mostly to check that it wasn't him misunderstanding the issue, but hoping to close off the issue.

This was discussed briefly last week, but we need more people to fill in the survey and/or be able to comment on the response.

Do you:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the response 3
Agree with the response with adjustment
Something else

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

Details

Responder DONE: Clarification on USB-based 2FA #1903Comments
Ben Tillyer
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Aimee Ubbink
Wilco Fiers
Todd Libby Agree with the response
David MacDonald
Stefan Schnabel
Patrick Lauke
Charles Adams
Bruce Bailey Agree with the response
John Kirkwood
Michael Gower
Laura Carlson
Rain Breaw Michaels
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Gundula Niemann Agree with the response
Alastair Campbell

11. DEFUNCT: Adobe Comment on 3.3.7 Accessible Authentication #1885

AWK raised issue 1885 with a question and comment.

There is a proposed response.

Last week we discussed this issue, but need someone to examine the Time-outs issue with WebauthN.

Do you:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the response 5
Agree with the response with adjustment (comment) 1
Propose a different response (comment) 1

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

Details

Responder DEFUNCT: Adobe Comment on 3.3.7 Accessible Authentication #1885Comments
Ben Tillyer Agree with the response
Andrew Kirkpatrick Propose a different response (comment) I'm concerned about Alastair's response saying that the time out problem would be essential as it is security related, but that doesn't align with the way we decided to handle essential and security in 3.3.8 (Redundant Entry).
Aimee Ubbink
Wilco Fiers Agree with the response with adjustment (comment) I don't agree that the "essential exception" of 2.1.1 applies to authentication. This should just say that SC 2.1.1 applies to WebauthN, just as it does to any other web based authentication method.
Todd Libby Agree with the response
David MacDonald
Stefan Schnabel
Patrick Lauke Agree with the response
Charles Adams
Bruce Bailey Agree with the response
John Kirkwood
Michael Gower
Laura Carlson
Rain Breaw Michaels Agree with the response
Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Gundula Niemann
Alastair Campbell

12. DONE: confusion about "paste" #1855

In Issue 1855 Patrick points out that blocking copy-paste is not the mechanism which blocks password managers.

Both blocking password managers and copy-paste is an issue so the discussing those in the understanding doc is valid, but they need separating.

PR 1898 updates the understanding doc.

Do you:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the updates 9
Agree with the updates, with adjustment 1
Something else

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

Details

Responder DONE: confusion about "paste" #1855Comments
Ben Tillyer Agree with the updates
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Aimee Ubbink Agree with the updates
Wilco Fiers Agree with the updates
Todd Libby Agree with the updates
David MacDonald
Stefan Schnabel
Patrick Lauke Agree with the updates However, the PR was made with the understanding that the "form is written 'correctly' per SC 1.3.5", and "must not block paste" are two separate aspects. I've seen some discussions where both are treated as being interdependent, which was not my reading of the SC. this should be clarified. the example originally included about a web-based command line environment that allows users to copy from a 3rd party pwd manager and then paste into the CLI, however, would negate the reading of 1.3.5 being required at the same time, as a CLI would not *have* any inputs with autocomplete...
Charles Adams
Bruce Bailey Agree with the updates
John Kirkwood
Michael Gower
Laura Carlson Agree with the updates
Rain Breaw Michaels Agree with the updates
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Agree with the updates, with adjustment I agree both of these topics need to be addressed but as written it looks like username and password fields can be used if they either do not block copy paste OR are properly marked up. I think to pass they should need to allow copy and paste AND be properly marked up. People use password managers differently and there are times password managers fail so I believe both autofill and copy/paste should be supported to ensure success.
Gundula Niemann Agree with the updates
Alastair Campbell

13. DONE: Other Methods #1879

@benja11y asks in Issue 1879 whether an RSA token (with digital screen showing characters) would qualify as another method for this SC, when it isn't accessible to people who cannot see it.

The proposed response says no, there needs to be a fully conformant version, as per the conforming alternative version definition.

Do you:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree with the response 10
Agree with the response with adjustment (comment)
Propose a different response (comment)

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

Details

Responder DONE: Other Methods #1879Comments
Ben Tillyer Agree with the response (I am @benja11y)
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Aimee Ubbink Agree with the response
Wilco Fiers Agree with the response
Todd Libby Agree with the response
David MacDonald
Stefan Schnabel
Patrick Lauke Agree with the response
Charles Adams
Bruce Bailey Agree with the response
John Kirkwood
Michael Gower
Laura Carlson Agree with the response
Rain Breaw Michaels Agree with the response
Rachael Bradley Montgomery Agree with the response It may be worth noting that a standard RSA token would not pass but one that autopopulates the number through the USB port might. https://www.rsa.com/content/dam/en/data-sheet/rsa-securid-hardware-tokens.pdf
Gundula Niemann Agree with the response May several alternatives accumulate to answer all needs and thus reach Accessibility?
Alastair Campbell

More details on responses

  • Todd Libby: last responded on 15, July 2021 at 20:37 (UTC)
  • David MacDonald: last responded on 10, September 2021 at 16:30 (UTC)
  • Stefan Schnabel: last responded on 13, September 2021 at 12:25 (UTC)
  • Patrick Lauke: last responded on 14, September 2021 at 12:24 (UTC)
  • Charles Adams: last responded on 14, September 2021 at 13:56 (UTC)
  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 14, September 2021 at 14:49 (UTC)
  • John Kirkwood: last responded on 14, September 2021 at 15:00 (UTC)
  • Michael Gower: last responded on 14, September 2021 at 15:44 (UTC)
  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 17, September 2021 at 12:26 (UTC)
  • Rain Breaw Michaels: last responded on 18, September 2021 at 16:29 (UTC)
  • Rachael Bradley Montgomery: last responded on 21, September 2021 at 13:13 (UTC)
  • Gundula Niemann: last responded on 21, September 2021 at 15:01 (UTC)
  • Alastair Campbell: last responded on 21, September 2021 at 15:27 (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. Gez Lemon
  11. Makoto Ueki
  12. Peter Korn
  13. Preety Kumar
  14. Georgios Grigoriadis
  15. Romain Deltour
  16. Chris Blouch
  17. Jedi Lin
  18. Jeanne F Spellman
  19. Kimberly Patch
  20. Glenda Sims
  21. Ian Pouncey
  22. Léonie Watson
  23. David Sloan
  24. Mary Jo Mueller
  25. Detlev Fischer
  26. Reinaldo Ferraz
  27. Matt Garrish
  28. Mike Gifford
  29. Loïc Martínez Normand
  30. Mike Pluke
  31. Justine Pascalides
  32. Chris Loiselle
  33. Tzviya Siegman
  34. Jan McSorley
  35. Sailesh Panchang
  36. Cristina Mussinelli
  37. Jonathan Avila
  38. John Rochford
  39. Sarah Horton
  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. Francis Storr
  54. Rick Johnson
  55. David Swallow
  56. Aparna Pasi
  57. Gregorio Pellegrino
  58. Melanie Philipp
  59. Jake Abma
  60. Nicole Windmann
  61. Oliver Keim
  62. Ruoxi Ran
  63. Wendy Reid
  64. Scott O'Hara
  65. Muhammad Saleem
  66. Amani Ali
  67. Trevor Bostic
  68. Jamie Herrera
  69. Shinya Takami
  70. Karen Herr
  71. Kathy Eng
  72. Cybele Sack
  73. Audrey Maniez
  74. Jennifer Delisi
  75. Arthur Soroken
  76. Daniel Bjorge
  77. Kai Recke
  78. David Fazio
  79. Daniel Montalvo
  80. Mario Chacón-Rivas
  81. Michael Gilbert
  82. Caryn Pagel
  83. Achraf Othman
  84. Helen Burge
  85. Fernanda Bonnin
  86. Jared Batterman
  87. Raja Kushalnagar
  88. Jan Williams
  89. Isabel Holdsworth
  90. Julia Chen
  91. Marcos Franco Murillo
  92. Yutaka Suzuki
  93. Azlan Cuttilan
  94. Jennifer Strickland
  95. Joe Humbert
  96. Charu Pandhi
  97. Poornima Badhan Subramanian
  98. Alain Vagner
  99. Roberto Scano
  100. Kun Zhang
  101. Jaunita George
  102. Regina Sanchez
  103. Shawn Thompson
  104. Thomas Brunet
  105. Kenny Dunsin
  106. Jen Goulden
  107. Mike Beganyi
  108. Ronny Hendriks
  109. Olivia Hogan-Stark
  110. Rashmi Katakwar
  111. Julie Rawe
  112. Duff Johnson
  113. Laura Miller
  114. Will Creedle
  115. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  116. Marie Csanady
  117. Meenakshi Das
  118. Perrin Anto
  119. Rachele DiTullio
  120. Jan Jaap de Groot
  121. Rebecca Monteleone
  122. Ian Kersey
  123. Peter Bossley
  124. Anastasia Lanz
  125. Michael Keane
  126. Chiara De Martin
  127. Giacomo Petri
  128. Andrew Barakat
  129. Devanshu Chandra
  130. Xiao (Helen) Zhou
  131. Joe Lamyman
  132. Bryan Trogdon
  133. Mary Ann (MJ) Jawili
  134. 禹佳 陶
  135. 锦澄 王
  136. Stephen James
  137. Jay Mullen
  138. Thorsten Katzmann
  139. Tony Holland
  140. Kent Boucher
  141. Abbey Davis
  142. Phil Day
  143. Julia Kim
  144. Michelle Lana
  145. David Williams
  146. Mikayla Thompson
  147. Catherine Droege
  148. James Edwards
  149. Eric Hind
  150. Quintin Balsdon
  151. Mario Batušić
  152. David Cox
  153. Sazzad Mahamud
  154. Katy Brickley
  155. Kimberly Sarabia
  156. Corey Hinshaw
  157. Ashley Firth
  158. Daniel Harper-Wain
  159. Kiara Stewart
  160. DJ Chase
  161. Suji Sreerama
  162. Lori Oakley
  163. David Middleton
  164. Alyssa Priddy
  165. Young Choi
  166. Nichole Bui
  167. Julie Romanowski
  168. Eloisa Guerrero
  169. Daniel Henderson-Ede
  170. George Kuan
  171. YAPING LIN
  172. Justin Wilson
  173. Leonard Beasley
  174. Tiffany Burtin
  175. Shane Dittmar
  176. Nayan Padrai
  177. Niamh Kelly
  178. Matt Argomaniz Matthew Argomaniz
  179. Frankie Wolf
  180. Kimberly McGee
  181. Ahson Rana
  182. Carolina Crespo
  183. humor927 humor927
  184. Samantha McDaniel
  185. Matthäus Rojek
  186. Phong Tony Le
  187. Bram Janssens
  188. Graham Ritchie
  189. Aleksandar Cindrikj
  190. Jeroen Hulscher
  191. Alina Vayntrub
  192. Marco Sabidussi
  193. John Toles
  194. Jeanne Erickson Cooley
  195. Theo Hale
  196. Gert-Jan Vercauteren
  197. Karla Rubiano
  198. Aashutosh K
  199. Hidde de Vries
  200. Julian Kittelson-Aldred
  201. Roland Buss
  202. Aditya Surendranath
  203. Avon Kuo
  204. Elizabeth Patrick
  205. Tj Squires
  206. Nat Tarnoff
  207. Illai Zeevi
  208. Filippo Zorzi
  209. Gleidson Ramos
  210. Mike Pedersen
  211. Rachael Yomtoob
  212. Oliver Habersetzer
  213. 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.