W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire EOWG Weekly Survey - Due 16 Sep 2015

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email addresses: shawn@w3.org,shadi@w3.org,kevin@w3.org

This questionnaire was open from 2015-09-11 to 2015-09-16.

15 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Resolutions of 11 September
  2. Tips - Changes for review
  3. Tips - Introduction text
  4. Quickref - Changes for review
  5. Quickref - Introduction text

1. Resolutions of 11 September

Please read the 11 September Summary and/or meeting minutes for EOWG Teleconference. Indicate your approval or concerns with the resolution(s) passed at that meeting. Find the summary and the link to the full minutes on the Minutes wiki page.)

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them! 10
I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed. 4
I have reviewed the minutes but have concerns with the Resolutions, and I explain them below. 1
I have not read the minutes yet, and have put the date for my review into the comments box.

Details

Responder Resolutions of 11 SeptemberComments
James Green I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Shadi Abou-Zahra I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Lydia Harkey I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed.
Eric Eggert I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Anna Belle Leiserson I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
David Berman I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Vicki Menezes Miller I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
George Heake I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed.
Brent Bakken I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Melody Ma I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed.
Howard Kramer I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Jonathan Metz I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed. I love the resolutions.
Kevin White I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Andrew Arch I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
Shawn Lawton Henry I have reviewed the minutes but have concerns with the Resolutions, and I explain them below. 1. Learn More -> Related Resources.
In most cases, the tip text briefly introduces the issue, but is not sufficient information for people to implement the tip effectively. Usually they will need to follow at least some of the links to Learn More about the tip. Because of this, I'm hesitant to change "Learn More" to "Related Resources". "Learn More" is active and imperative; whereas, "Related Resources" is passive and does not say 'follow these links'. [medium-strong]

2. Link headings.
a. It should be "WCAG requirement", not "Related requirement" to make it very clear where the link is going, and to re-enforce WCAG. (For those few cases where the tip provides best practice, it should say "Related WCAG requirement.) [medium-strong]
b. In many cases, I think the Understanding link will be the most helpful. If it's buried in parenthesis at the end of a bullet, I think it will get lost. [medium]
c. It's generally uncool to have a list with one item, and it takes up more space. When there is only one item in a category, I think it should be one bullet. [low]
e.g.:
* Related Requirement
** 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions (Understanding 3.3.2)
** 2.4.6 Headings and Labels (Understanding 2.4.6)
* Tutorial: Visual position of label text
* User Story: How clear labelling can help someone with cognitive difficulties
Not:
* Related Requirement
** 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions (Understanding 3.3.2)
** 2.4.6 Headings and Labels (Understanding 2.4.6)
* Tutorial
** Visual position of label text
* User Story
** How clear labelling can help someone with cognitive difficulties

3. Expand WCAG acronym in intro paragraph.
OK.
4. Remove the link to WCAG side bar in intro paragraph.
OK

5. Kevin will take feedback and work on the concept of "outside" the box for the captions.
"Kevin: Channeling Shawn a bit, she wanted it brought more together and less obtrusive." Thanks, Kevin! :-)

I object to http://w3c.github.io/wai-quick-start/designing.html#dont-use-color-alone-to-convey-information with the captions outside the box – as I have extensively commented on previously. When I look at that tip, the examples scream for attention – way more than the tip text itself.

One idea is to take http://w3c.github.io/wai-quick-start/designing.html#provide-easily-identifiable-feedback and make the line go all the way across the box, from edge to edge. Along with the addition of the check-marks and Xs, that might sufficiently separate the caption from the actual example. Also, perhaps try different styling of the caption text – possibly italic? Or gray? And not bold?

Also, while you're working on the examples, *please* make the example text smaller, including the heading. Right now, "Example: Using color to convey meaning" is larger than the main tip text, and the captions are bold – making it all so much more attention-grabbing than the main tip text.
[strong]
p.s. I like the checks and Xs – thanks! :)

2. Tips - Changes for review

We made the following changes to the Tips pages last week:

  1. Tips - Changed design icon, and converted all icons to SVG (GitHub 789588f)
  2. Tips - Modified CSS to refer to wai-main.css and overwrite where appropriate (GitHub 7512711)
  3. Tips - Removed 'SC' from link text GitHub ceb2fcb
  4. Tips - Removed references to Techniques GitHub 0123490
  5. Tips - Added in Learn more link to QuickRef GitHub 7a411a9
  6. Tips - Modified Learn more description GitHub ##223
  7. Tips - Slight darkening of example border GitHub 6f63b36
  8. Tips - Changed tips navigation to make current page more obvious (GitHub #211)
  9. Tips - Writing - alternative text - Slight changes based on GitHub #198
  10. Tips - Writing - link text - Change to text to make it less ambiguous (GitHub #196)
  11. Tips - Designing - label association - Slight change to the caption GitHub 0579ce9
  12. Tips - Developing - form control - Slight change to tip name and remove passive voice from description (GitHub #227)
  13. Tips - Developing - alt text - indicate where alt text should be found (GitHub #151)
  14. Tips - Developing - adapting code - remove passive voice (GitHub #222)
  15. Tips - Developing - non-standard elements - changed example to avoid higlighting poor practice (GitHub d5fd5dc)
  16. Tips - Developing - keyboard interaction - remove SPACE key action (GitHub 2d9442c)

To comment on any of the changes, please comment in the GitHub thread (or comment in this survey, or raise a new issue in GitHub).

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I'm OK with these changes. 11
I put comments in GitHub. 1
I put comments below. 2
I have not gotten to this yet, and have entered below the date I expect to complete my review.
I'm not going to be able to get to this, I will pass on commenting on it and accept the decision of the group. 1

Details

Responder Tips - Changes for reviewComments
James Green I'm OK with these changes.
Shadi Abou-Zahra I'm OK with these changes.
Lydia Harkey I'm OK with these changes.
Eric Eggert I'm OK with these changes.
Anna Belle Leiserson I'm not going to be able to get to this, I will pass on commenting on it and accept the decision of the group. Sorry. Busy week.
David Berman I put comments in GitHub.
Vicki Menezes Miller I'm OK with these changes.
George Heake I'm OK with these changes.
Brent Bakken I'm OK with these changes.
Melody Ma I put comments below. For the menu, the focus state for the submenu could be more visible.
Howard Kramer I'm OK with these changes.
Jonathan Metz I'm OK with these changes. Just as an aside, I really like the Designing Tip for no special reason.
Kevin White I'm OK with these changes. [Document author]
Andrew Arch I'm OK with these changes.
Shawn Lawton Henry I put comments below. * Why remove references to Techniques? These seem to point to the most direct instruction to help people. [low]

* "Added in Learn more link to QuickRef GitHub 7a411a9" – Sorry I can't figure out what this change is.

* https://github.com/w3c/wai-quick-start/issues/223 - I commented & re-opened. [medium-strong]

[I didn't review the Developing changes above individually, because I still need to reveiew the page overall.]

3. Tips - Introduction text

The text used to introduce the whole resource and each individual set of tips has undergone a number of rewrites.

Please review the implementation in the overview and each of Designing, Writing, and Developing.

Consider how the introductions address comments raised in GitHub #178 and GitHub #220.

Please raise any issues as new issues in GitHub.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I have reviewed the introductions and comfortable with the approach taken. 10
I have reviewed and raised issues in GitHub. 4
I have reviewed and put comments below or in email to the EOWG list.
I cannot get to this yet, and have put the date for my review into the comments box. 1
I'm not going to be able to get to this, I will pass on commenting on it, and go with the decision of the Group.

Details

Responder Tips - Introduction text
James Green I have reviewed the introductions and comfortable with the approach taken.
Shadi Abou-Zahra I have reviewed the introductions and comfortable with the approach taken.
Lydia Harkey I have reviewed the introductions and comfortable with the approach taken.
Eric Eggert I have reviewed the introductions and comfortable with the approach taken.
Anna Belle Leiserson I have reviewed and raised issues in GitHub.
David Berman I have reviewed the introductions and comfortable with the approach taken.
Vicki Menezes Miller I have reviewed the introductions and comfortable with the approach taken.
George Heake I have reviewed the introductions and comfortable with the approach taken.
Brent Bakken I have reviewed and raised issues in GitHub.
Melody Ma I have reviewed the introductions and comfortable with the approach taken.
Howard Kramer I have reviewed and raised issues in GitHub.
Jonathan Metz I cannot get to this yet, and have put the date for my review into the comments box. Friday, September 18th after 12pm.
Kevin White I have reviewed the introductions and comfortable with the approach taken. [Document author]
Andrew Arch I have reviewed the introductions and comfortable with the approach taken.
Shawn Lawton Henry I have reviewed and raised issues in GitHub. https://github.com/w3c/wai-quick-start/pull/252/files

https://github.com/w3c/wai-quick-start/pull/253/files

https://github.com/w3c/wai-quick-start/pull/254/files

4. Quickref - Changes for review

We made the following changes to the Quickref over the past weeks:

  • Content:
    1. Imported complete WCAG 2.0
    2. Added “About this Quick Reference” button to show intro and help
    3. Added more tags (tag assignments proposed)
  • Styling:
    1. Fixed-with left column
    2. Changed apperance of the principles to stand out more
    3. Using the levels filter yields the same display as when using tags (mute success criteria that are not in that level)
  • Functionality:
    1. Tags now have a de-select all button
    2. Select all and de-select all buttons are now disabled by default and are only enabled when they can be operated
    3. Easy access to sharing the URL using the share this view button in the top sharing bar.
    4. Sidebar status is now saved to the URL.

To comment on any of the changes, please raise a new issue in GitHub (or comment below).

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I'm OK with these changes. 10
I put comments in GitHub. 1
I put comments below. 3
I have not gotten to this yet, and have entered below the date I expect to complete my review. 1
I'm not going to be able to get to this, I will pass on commenting on it and accept the decision of the group.

Details

Responder Quickref - Changes for reviewComments
James Green I'm OK with these changes.
Shadi Abou-Zahra I'm OK with these changes.
Lydia Harkey I'm OK with these changes.
Eric Eggert I'm OK with these changes. [Editor]
Anna Belle Leiserson I'm OK with these changes. Beautiful job!
David Berman I put comments below. Sharron, I think perhaps the second radio button above should discriminate at to whether it means "I have at some point put comments in Github regarding this stuff" vs. "I have put new comments in GitHub regarding the changes". I'm not sure how to say that succinctly, but I'm not sure which of the two you are seeking. Am I making sense?
Vicki Menezes Miller I'm OK with these changes. Fantastic work - really looking good.
George Heake I'm OK with these changes.
Brent Bakken I put comments in GitHub.
Melody Ma I put comments below. The light blues and greys are very hard to see. There's not enough distinction between the sticky top bar of "Showing success criteria..." and the content body. "Share this view" and "Clear all filters" formatting is funky in smaller viewport.
Howard Kramer I'm OK with these changes.
Jonathan Metz I put comments below. When I deselect all, the whole thing resets. Then if I select another Tag, it goes back to being populated. I didn't add a Github issue because it seems like a normal error that occurs because the tags don't have functionality yet.
Kevin White I have not gotten to this yet, and have entered below the date I expect to complete my review. 17 Sep
Andrew Arch I'm OK with these changes. looking fantastic!
Shawn Lawton Henry I'm OK with these changes.

5. Quickref - Introduction text

As you can see on the current quick reference prototype, there is a new button on the top called “About this Quick Reference” (working title). We need to provide some information about the quickref to users and introduce the possibilities that this tool can provide to them.

The current (published) quick reference has a very long introduction before getting to the WCAG 2.0 criteria. We have designed the prototype so information is better accessible.

The concept proposed in the prototype splits information up in chunks that can be easily understood. Currently it uses four boxes (About, Tags & Filters, Sharing, and Contribute) to demonstrate the approach.

Please take a look at this Issue on Github and add your comments and observations on what content is relevant in this introduction. Note that we are not searching for a specific wording at the moment.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I have reviewed the proposal and comfortable with the approach taken. 6
I have reviewed and added comments/ideas to the GitHub issue. 2
I have reviewed and put comments below or in email to the EOWG list. 2
I cannot get to this yet, and have put the date for my review into the comments box. 2
I'm not going to be able to get to this, I will pass on commenting on it, and go with the decision of the Group. 2

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Quickref - Introduction text
James Green I have reviewed the proposal and comfortable with the approach taken.
Shadi Abou-Zahra
Lydia Harkey I cannot get to this yet, and have put the date for my review into the comments box. Wednesday, 9/16
Eric Eggert I have reviewed the proposal and comfortable with the approach taken. [Editor]
Anna Belle Leiserson I'm not going to be able to get to this, I will pass on commenting on it, and go with the decision of the Group.
David Berman I have reviewed the proposal and comfortable with the approach taken.
Vicki Menezes Miller I have reviewed the proposal and comfortable with the approach taken.
George Heake I have reviewed the proposal and comfortable with the approach taken.
Brent Bakken I have reviewed and added comments/ideas to the GitHub issue.
Melody Ma I have reviewed and put comments below or in email to the EOWG list. Can there be popover help tips next to the sections like "Tag" in case people miss the "About this Quick Reference"?
Howard Kramer I have reviewed the proposal and comfortable with the approach taken.
Jonathan Metz I'm not going to be able to get to this, I will pass on commenting on it, and go with the decision of the Group. Friday, September 18th after 12pm.
Kevin White I cannot get to this yet, and have put the date for my review into the comments box. 17 Sep
Andrew Arch I have reviewed and added comments/ideas to the GitHub issue. done
Shawn Lawton Henry I have reviewed and put comments below or in email to the EOWG list. I haven't been able to do a detailed review yet, sorry. For now I want to note that some of the intro material in the previous/existing QuickRef was felt to be very important. I'll try to remember some of that discussion, and we should also check with WCAG WG.

For example, We probably need to include "For important information about the techniques, please see the Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria section of Understanding WCAG 2.0."

And it would probably be good to include: "This web page can be used as a checklist for WCAG 2.0."

And it seems we need at least "It includes: All of the requirements (called "success criteria") from Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0"

And we might need to explain the Techniques & Understadning links, etc. (especially "future link" since I keep getting questions about that).
Possibly that stuff is on another page? Maybe just the link "For an introduction to WCAG, Techniques, and Understanding documents, see the WCAG Overview." would be sufficient (and we can see if we want to update that page a bit to be even better for this.)

More details on responses

  • James Green: last responded on 15, September 2015 at 17:36 (UTC)
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra: last responded on 15, September 2015 at 20:46 (UTC)
  • Lydia Harkey: last responded on 16, September 2015 at 00:48 (UTC)
  • Eric Eggert: last responded on 16, September 2015 at 09:46 (UTC)
  • Anna Belle Leiserson: last responded on 16, September 2015 at 18:53 (UTC)
  • David Berman: last responded on 16, September 2015 at 20:17 (UTC)
  • Vicki Menezes Miller: last responded on 16, September 2015 at 21:22 (UTC)
  • George Heake: last responded on 16, September 2015 at 21:32 (UTC)
  • Brent Bakken: last responded on 16, September 2015 at 22:32 (UTC)
  • Melody Ma: last responded on 17, September 2015 at 01:39 (UTC)
  • Howard Kramer: last responded on 17, September 2015 at 03:48 (UTC)
  • Jonathan Metz: last responded on 17, September 2015 at 04:49 (UTC)
  • Kevin White: last responded on 17, September 2015 at 09:54 (UTC)
  • Andrew Arch: last responded on 17, September 2015 at 13:04 (UTC)
  • Shawn Lawton Henry: last responded on 17, September 2015 at 18:05 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Eric Velleman
  2. Sylvie Duchateau
  3. Kazuhito Kidachi
  4. Sharron Rush
  5. Jedi Lin
  6. David Sloan
  7. Mary Jo Mueller
  8. Reinaldo Ferraz
  9. Bill Kasdorf
  10. Cristina Mussinelli
  11. Kevin Rydberg
  12. Ahmath Bamba MBACKE
  13. Adina Halter
  14. Laura Keen
  15. Sarah Pulis
  16. Bill Tyler
  17. Gregorio Pellegrino
  18. Ruoxi Ran
  19. Jennifer Chadwick
  20. Sean Kelly
  21. Muhammad Saleem
  22. Sarah Lewthwaite
  23. Daniel Montalvo
  24. Jade Matos Carew
  25. Sonsoles López Pernas
  26. Greta Krafsig
  27. Jayne Schurick
  28. Billie Johnston
  29. Michele Williams
  30. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  31. Brian Elton
  32. Julianna Rowsell
  33. Tabitha Mahoney
  34. Fred Edora
  35. Rabab Gomaa
  36. Marcelo Paiva
  37. Eloisa Guerrero
  38. Leonard Beasley
  39. Frankie Wolf
  40. Supriya Makude
  41. Aleksandar Cindrikj
  42. Angela Young

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.