w3c/wbs-design
or
by mail to sysreq
.
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.
This questionnaire was open from 2012-12-27 to 2013-03-29.
8 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
A.1.1.1 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG): If the authoring tool contains web-based user interfaces, then those web-based user interfaces meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)
Test 0001 Assertion: Any web-based portions of an authoring tool user interface meet WCAG 2.0 at A level.
Test 0002 Assertion: Any web-based portions of an authoring tool user interface meet WCAG 2.0 at AA level. (Note: Only shown if the user has specified AA or AAA as the target level)
Test 0003 Assertion: Any web-based portions of an authoring tool user interface meet WCAG 2.0 at AAA level. (Note: Only shown if the user has specified AAA as the target level)
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 6 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | |
Disagree with the proposal | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group | 1 |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Responder | A.1.1.1 tests | Comments on A.1.1.1 |
---|---|---|
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | ||
Alex Li | Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group | Not sure what "accessible test content file" is supposed to be. I'd not sure the screen reader test should be part of the web content accessibility test procedure because bugs from screen reader will then be mistakenly attributed to the authoring tool or web content. The flip side is also true that just because screen reader present the content to users does not necessarily mean that the content meet WCAG 2.0 SCs. |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal |
A.1.2.1 Accessibility Guidelines: If the authoring tool contains non-web-based user interfaces, then those non-web-based user interfaces follow user interface accessibility guidelines for the platform. (Level A)
Test 0001 Assertion: Any non-web-based portions of the authoring tool user interface follow the accessibility guidelines for the platform.
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 7 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group | 1 |
Responder | A.1.2.1 tests | Comments on A.1.2.1 |
---|---|---|
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group | Again, what is the accessible test content file? |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal |
A.1.2.2 Platform Accessibility Services: If the authoring tool contains non-web-based user interfaces, then those non-web-based user interfaces expose accessibility information through platform accessibility services. (Level A)
Test 0001 Assertion: Any non-web-based components of the authoring tool user interface successfully communicate name and role with the platform accessibility services (accessibility APIs).
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 8 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.1.2.2 tests | Comments on A.1.2.2 |
---|---|---|
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | Accept the proposal | |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal |
A.2.1.1 Text Alternatives for Rendered Non-Text Content: If an editing-view renders non-text content, then any programmatically associated text alternatives for the non-text content can be programmatically determined. (Level A)
Test 0001 Assertion: Any editing views that render audio-video include an option to display alternatives or an option to preview the media in user agent capable of rendering the alternatives.
Test 0002 Assertion: Any editing views that render video-only media include an option to display alternatives or an option to preview the media in user agent capable of rendering the alternatives.
Test 0003 Assertion: Any editing views that render audio-only media include an option to display alternatives or an option to preview the media in user agent capable of rendering the alternatives.
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 6 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | 1 |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | 1 |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.2.1.1 tests | Comments on A.1.1.1 |
---|---|---|
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | Remeber this is an authoring tool for multimedia, either audio or video and as such, the alternatives may not be available because this is raw content. Needs some kind of qualifier that doesn't automatically assume that an alternative is already in existance. Your not going to have a closed caption transcript for video ready until the video has been edited. No one is going to bother producing alternatives for content that ends up on the cutting room floor. Chicken, meet egg. Egg say hello to chicken. |
Alex Li | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | Why does the test assume multiple editing views? I don't understand the language about "next editing view". Test 0002 step 2.1 has ambiguous If statement. The test should be whether authoring tool can render the alternative, not whether the authoring tool can be set to render the alternative. It is possible for the authoring tool to obtain user preference from the OS or other sources where it will automatically render alternate content. |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal |
A.2.1.2 Alternatives for Rendered Time-Based Media: If an editing-view renders time-based media, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A) (a) Option to Render: The authoring tool provides the option to render alternatives for the time-based media; or (b) User Agent Option: Authors have the option to preview the time-based media in a user agent that is able to render the alternatives.
Test 0001 Assertion: Any editing views that render audio-video include an option to display alternatives or an option to preview the media in user agent capable of rendering the alternatives.
Test 0002 Assertion: Any editing views that render video-only media include an option to display alternatives or an option to preview the media in user agent capable of rendering the alternatives.
Test 0003 Assertion: Any editing views that render audio-only media include an option to display alternatives or an option to preview the media in user agent capable of rendering the alternatives.
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 7 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | 1 |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.2.1.2 tests | Comments on A.2.1.2 |
---|---|---|
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | This one is different from A.1.1.1 because it addresses the issue of the tool having a mechanism to display these alternative options, but does not assume the alternative content is available. |
Alex Li | The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | If the tests are exactly the same, then we have duplicative SC. |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal |
A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Indicators: If an editing-view adds status indicators to the content being edited, then the information being conveyed by the status indicators can be programmatically determined. (Level A)
Note: Status indicators may indicate errors (e.g., spelling errors), tracked changes, hidden elements, or other information.
Test 0001 Assertion: For web-based tools: Status information about the content (e.g. spell checking) can be programmatically determined.
Test 0002 Assertion: For non-web-based tools: Status information about the content (e.g. spell checking) can be programmatically determined.
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 7 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group | 1 |
Responder | A.2.2.1 tests | Comments on A.2.2.1 |
---|---|---|
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group | Steps 2 indicates that the SC is not testable. |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal |
A.2.2.2 Access to Rendered Text Properties: If an editing-view renders any text formatting properties that authors can also edit using the editing-view, then the properties can be programmatically determined. (Level AA)
Test 0001 Assertion: For web-based tools, if rich text formatting can be produced then authors the same formatting is programmatically determinable within the authoring tool.
Test 0001 Author: Jan
Test 0002 Assertion: For non-web-based tools: Text formatting is available via the platform accessibilty service (e.g. API).
Test 0002 Author: Jan
Choice | All responders |
---|---|
Results | |
Accept the proposal | 7 |
Recommend changes (see comments field) | |
The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field) | |
Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | 1 |
Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group |
Responder | A.2.2.2 tests | Comments on A.2.2.2 |
---|---|---|
Jeanne F Spellman | Accept the proposal | |
Roberto Scano | Accept the proposal | |
Frederick Boland | Accept the proposal | |
Jan Richards | Accept the proposal | |
Alessandro Miele | Accept the proposal | |
Greg Pisocky | Accept the proposal | |
Alex Li | Disagree with the proposal (see comments field) | All steps with "SKIP", specify where to skip to. Screen readers should not be use for test 0002 4.2. Appropriate accessibility checkers should be used to identify programmatic exposure. |
Sueann Nichols | Accept the proposal |
Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.
Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders
WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire
w3c/wbs-design
or
by mail to sysreq
.