W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire (Group 3) Review content changes and issue responses for public comments

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2024-08-26 to 2024-09-04.

8 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Issue 473 (Issue answer): Definitions and explanations for “Set of Documents” and “Set of Software Programs” produces strange corner cases that should be addressed or explained
  2. Issue 427: 4.1.1 Parsing: does it need to be added in 'problematic for closed'?
  3. Issue 383 part 1 (Text before the list): Adjust links in Guidance section to link to all task force and AG publications
  4. Issue 383 part 2 (Changing the bulleted list): Adjust links in Guidance section to link to all task force and AG publications
  5. Issue 383 part 3 (Answer for comment in issue): Adjust links in Guidance section to link to all task force and AG publications
  6. Issue 394 part 1 (Bullet for 1.4.10 in SC problematic): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”
  7. Issue 394 part 2 (General guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”
  8. Issue 394 part 3 (General guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”
  9. You can stop here (the rest is done)
  10. Issue 465 Part 2 (SC 2.1.1 and "keyboard interface"): Seeking clarity for key term 'underlying platform software'
  11. Issue 465 Part 3 (SC 3.3.8): Seeking clarity for key term 'underlying platform software'
  12. Issue 465 Part 4 (Issue answer): Seeking clarity for key term 'underlying platform software'
  13. Issue 466: Closed functionality list - suggested additions
  14. Issue 464: Suggest slight clarification of audience and outcomes
  15. Issue 463 (Issue answer): Programmatically determine the language of text
  16. Issue 436 part 1 (replacing "user agent"): The definition of 'large scale' needs substitutions or notes
  17. Issue 436 part 2 (Interpreting 'pt' and 'point'): The definition of 'large scale' needs substitutions or notes
  18. Issue 421 part 1 ('keyboard interface' changes): In definition of 'keyboard interface' and in 2.1.1, "would satisfy the success criterion" is incomplete
  19. Issue 421 part 2 (SC 2.1.1 Keyboard changes): In definition of 'keyboard interface' and in 2.1.1, "would satisfy the success criterion" is incomplete

1. Issue 473 (Issue answer): Definitions and explanations for “Set of Documents” and “Set of Software Programs” produces strange corner cases that should be addressed or explained

Read Issue 473. The proposal is to not make any changes to the WCAG2ICT document and provide the reasoning for no changes in a comment on the issue. Review the proposed issue answer in the Google doc proposed answer to Issue 473. Indicate whether the proposal is ready to post as the WCAG2ICT TF answer in the issue. If you think edits are needed in WCAG2ICT and/or the issue answer needs changes, propose them in the Google doc in the section Draft answer proposal 2: Something else.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree that no WCAG2ICT changes are needed. The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is. 8
Agree that no WCAG2ICT changes are needed. The proposed answer is sufficient, but with edits.
Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. (Changes are needed in WCAG2ICT and/or the proposed issue answer needs major work.)

Details

Responder Issue 473 (Issue answer): Definitions and explanations for “Set of Documents” and “Set of Software Programs” produces strange corner cases that should be addressed or explainedComments
Gregg Vanderheiden Agree that no WCAG2ICT changes are needed. The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.
Mike Pluke Agree that no WCAG2ICT changes are needed. The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Agree that no WCAG2ICT changes are needed. The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.
Phil Day Agree that no WCAG2ICT changes are needed. The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.
Bruce Bailey Agree that no WCAG2ICT changes are needed. The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Agree that no WCAG2ICT changes are needed. The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.
Fernanda Bonnin Agree that no WCAG2ICT changes are needed. The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand Agree that no WCAG2ICT changes are needed. The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.

2. Issue 427: 4.1.1 Parsing: does it need to be added in 'problematic for closed'?

Read Issue 427. Review the proposed changes to address Issue 427 in the Google doc. Indicate which option you prefer and whether it is ready to merge into the editor's draft. If edits are needed, propose them in the Google doc in the section Option 3: Something else.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Option 0. Do not make any changes.
Prefer option 1, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 1
Prefer option 1, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 3
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. 1
Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. 3

Details

Responder Issue 427: 4.1.1 Parsing: does it need to be added in 'problematic for closed'?Comments
Gregg Vanderheiden Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. Option 3 in the doc
Mike Pluke Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Prefer option 1, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Phil Day Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Bruce Bailey Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. I like Greggs edit better than option 2 as-is, but I am okay with option 2 as-is.
I do not care for Option 0 nor option 1.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Fernanda Bonnin Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. option 3 from Gregg in the document
Loïc Martínez Normand Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. Option 3 from Gregg in the document

3. Issue 383 part 1 (Text before the list): Adjust links in Guidance section to link to all task force and AG publications

Read Issue 383. Read the original text excerpt from the Guidance in this Document section. This first part is regarding the proposed changes to the text before the list in the Google doc. Indicate which option you prefer and whether it is ready to merge into the editor's draft. If edits are needed, propose them in the Google doc in the section Option 3: Something else.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Option 1. Do not make any changes.
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 4
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. 3
Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. 1

Details

Responder Issue 383 part 1 (Text before the list): Adjust links in Guidance section to link to all task force and AG publicationsComments
Gregg Vanderheiden Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. change the beginning of the last sentence
FROM
Although they have not been changed to fully apply in non-web contexts,
TO
Although we have not suggested changes in this document to fully apply in non-web contexts,
Mike Pluke Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Phil Day Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Bruce Bailey Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. +1 to Gregg suggestion.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Fernanda Bonnin Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. This sentence could be misinterpreted as some WCAG AAA or parts of WCAG AAA S.C were changed to apply in non-web: "Although they have not been changed to fully apply in non-web contexts, the WCAG AAA success criteria"

Something like Gregg's proposal (removing fully from the sentence) would best represent that: "Although we have not suggested changes in this document to apply in non-web contexts, the WCAG AAA...."
Loïc Martínez Normand Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. +1 to Gregg suggestion.

4. Issue 383 part 2 (Changing the bulleted list): Adjust links in Guidance section to link to all task force and AG publications

This second part is regarding the seven proposals for changing the bulleted list in the Google doc. Indicate which option you prefer by listing the option number in the entry field and choose the radio button to indicate whether it is ready to merge into the editor's draft or if edits are needed. Propose any edits in the Google doc in the section Option 8: Something else.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I like one of the options as-is. Put into the entry field your preferred option. If other options are also acceptable, indicate which one(s). 8
I like one of the options, with edits. Put into the entry field your preferred option and provide the edits it needs. If other options are also acceptable, indicate which one(s).
Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc.

Details

Responder Issue 383 part 2 (Changing the bulleted list): Adjust links in Guidance section to link to all task force and AG publicationsComments
Gregg Vanderheiden I like one of the options as-is. Put into the entry field your preferred option. If other options are also acceptable, indicate which one(s). Option 5 or 3
Mike Pluke I like one of the options as-is. Put into the entry field your preferred option. If other options are also acceptable, indicate which one(s). Option 5. I understand that we cannot link to an unpublished Mobile Accessibility Task Force document, but as (the current version) declares itself as "a mobile-specific extension of this (WCAG2ICT) effort.", it seems perverse to provide no linkage to the results of the MATF effort. Option 5 provides an indirect linkage.
Chris Loiselle I like one of the options as-is. Put into the entry field your preferred option. If other options are also acceptable, indicate which one(s). 5
Phil Day I like one of the options as-is. Put into the entry field your preferred option. If other options are also acceptable, indicate which one(s). 5. Would also accept 6,7,3 in that order
Bruce Bailey I like one of the options as-is. Put into the entry field your preferred option. If other options are also acceptable, indicate which one(s). I prefer 3 or 2.

4 > 5 > 6 are acceptable. 4 might be a bit of work. Did WAI staff weigh in on these? That would change my preference.

I do not care for 1 nor 7.
Olivia Hogan-Stark I like one of the options as-is. Put into the entry field your preferred option. If other options are also acceptable, indicate which one(s). 3 and 5
Fernanda Bonnin I like one of the options as-is. Put into the entry field your preferred option. If other options are also acceptable, indicate which one(s). opt 5
Loïc Martínez Normand I like one of the options as-is. Put into the entry field your preferred option. If other options are also acceptable, indicate which one(s). Option 5, then 3.

5. Issue 383 part 3 (Answer for comment in issue): Adjust links in Guidance section to link to all task force and AG publications

This last part is regarding what we put as a comment in the Issue 383. Review the proposals for the TF response for the issue in the Google doc. Indicate which option you prefer and indicate whether the answer is sufficient (pending edits to reflect our content changes, if accepted). Propose any edits in the Google doc in the section Option 4: Something else.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Option 1, as-is.
Prefer Option 1, with edits.
Prefer Option 2, as-is. 6
Prefer Option 2, with edits.
Prefer Option 3, as-is.
Prefer Option 3, with edits.
Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. 1

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

Details

Responder Issue 383 part 3 (Answer for comment in issue): Adjust links in Guidance section to link to all task force and AG publicationsComments
Gregg Vanderheiden I don't understand the choices here. each one is based on a different outcome. Are we voting on the response, or are we voting on which outcome we want to be true?
Mike Pluke Prefer Option 2, as-is. I fully understand Gregg's point. I have selected Option 2 on the basis that most of the options in Question 14, including my preferred option 5, propose substitute link that Question 15 Option 2 refers to.
Chris Loiselle Prefer Option 2, as-is.
Phil Day Prefer Option 2, as-is. Would also accept other options if that is the way the edits go
Bruce Bailey Prefer Option 2, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Prefer Option 2, as-is.
Fernanda Bonnin Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. I think the answer would depend on the result of the previous questions. I propose we revisit the right answer after the other questions have agreement.
Loïc Martínez Normand Prefer Option 2, as-is. Although I can accept Fernanda's proposal to wait until we agree on the previous questions.

6. Issue 394 part 1 (Bullet for 1.4.10 in SC problematic): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”

This is part 1 of 3 questions for Issue 394. Read Issue 394. Review the Google doc proposals for a change in the bullet for 1.4.10 Reflow in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section. Indicate which option you prefer and whether it is ready to merge into the editor's draft. If edits are needed, propose them in the Google doc in the section Option 3: Something else.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Option 1. Do not make any changes. 1
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 7
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc.

Details

Responder Issue 394 part 1 (Bullet for 1.4.10 in SC problematic): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”Comments
Gregg Vanderheiden Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Mike Pluke Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Phil Day Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. But would also accept option 1 - which has the advantage of being less verbose
Bruce Bailey Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Prefer Option 1. Do not make any changes.
Fernanda Bonnin Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.

7. Issue 394 part 2 (General guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”

This is part 2 of 3 questions for Issue 394. Review the Google doc proposals for a change to Note 5 in the Applying SC 1.4.10 Reflow to Non-web Documents and Software section. Indicate which option you prefer and whether it is ready to merge into the editor's draft. If edits are needed, propose them in the Google doc in the section Option 3: Something else.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Option 1. Do not make any changes.
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 8
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc.

Details

Responder Issue 394 part 2 (General guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”Comments
Gregg Vanderheiden Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Mike Pluke Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Phil Day Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Bruce Bailey Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Fernanda Bonnin Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.

8. Issue 394 part 3 (General guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”

This is part 3 of 3 questions for Issue 394. Review the Google doc proposed answer to Issue 394. Indicate if the answers are sufficient to answer the issue. NOTE: We'll choose the appropriate answer based on the results of the questions and what gets changed in the WCAG2ICT document (if anything). If edits are needed, propose them in the Google doc in the section Option 3: Something else.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Option 1. Do not make any changes.
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 7
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. 1

Details

Responder Issue 394 part 3 (General guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow): SC Problematic for Closed Functionality 1.4.10 Reflow: Note should include “or content”Comments
Gregg Vanderheiden Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Mike Pluke Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Phil Day Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Bruce Bailey Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Fernanda Bonnin Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. same as question 5, I think the answer would depend on the result of the previous questions. I propose we revisit the right answer after the other questions have agreement.
Loïc Martínez Normand Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.

9. You can stop here (the rest is done)

The Task Force has already dealt with all the questions below, and has made decisions about them. Only answer them if you strongly disagree with the outcomes. For details, see WCAG2ICT minutes 29 August

Details

Responder
Gregg Vanderheiden
Mike Pluke
Chris Loiselle
Phil Day Thanks to Mary Jo & Daniel for reworking the survey so quickly!
Bruce Bailey
Olivia Hogan-Stark
Fernanda Bonnin
Loïc Martínez Normand

10. Issue 465 Part 2 (SC 2.1.1 and "keyboard interface"): Seeking clarity for key term 'underlying platform software'

This is the 2nd part regarding Issue 465. The first part was covered in question 5 of the previous survey which we discussed and agreed on in the 22 Aug. meeting.

Review the two proposals in the Google doc proposed content changes to address SC 2.1.1 Keyboard and "keyboard interface". Indicate which option you prefer and whether it is ready to merge into the editor's draft. If edits are needed, propose them in the Google doc in the section Option 3: Something else.

You can read the Proposal 2 changes in the context of the full document built from PR 485. See the sections Applying SC 2.1.1 Keyboard to non-web documents and software Note 1 and the definition of Applying "keyboard interface" to Non-web Documents and Software Note 1.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Option 1 - current text. Do not make any changes.
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 5
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. 2

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

Details

Responder Issue 465 Part 2 (SC 2.1.1 and "keyboard interface"): Seeking clarity for key term 'underlying platform software'Comments
Gregg Vanderheiden Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. the last sentence in option 2 is unintelligible unless you already know what it is trying to say.

I propose and easier to read option 3 as follows (and also in the doc)

ALSO Option 2 inadvertently changes the SC from "fully operablle from keyboard interface" to "if you get your keystrokes from a keyboard input service -- you satisfy the SC". This says you can meet the SC if you only use the service -- not that you must be fully operable from that service.

NOTE 1: Keyboard interface does not refer to a physical device but to the interface between the software and any keyboard or keyboard substitute (i.e., an interface where the software accepts text or other keystroke input). Platform software may provide device independent “keystroke- input” services to applications that can draw their ‘keyboard input’ from such a keyboard interface (API). Software that is fully operable from keystrokes it gets from such platform device independent ‘keyboard’ or ‘keystroke input’ services would be fully operable via a keyboard interface and would satisfy the success criterion.
Mike Pluke Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. Fine with either.
Phil Day Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. But would also accept option 1
Bruce Bailey Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. I prefer GreggV Option 3 to option 2.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Fernanda Bonnin Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand

11. Issue 465 Part 3 (SC 3.3.8): Seeking clarity for key term 'underlying platform software'

Review the two proposals in the Google doc proposed content changes to address SC 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum). Indicate which option you prefer and whether it is ready to merge into the editor's draft. If edits are needed, propose them in the Google doc in the section Option 3: Something else.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Option 1 - current text. Do not make any changes. 4
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. 1
Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. 2

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

Details

Responder Issue 465 Part 3 (SC 3.3.8): Seeking clarity for key term 'underlying platform software'Comments
Gregg Vanderheiden Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Mike Pluke Prefer Option 1 - current text. Do not make any changes. At first I agreed with Bruce's proposed deletion, but I think that it is necessary to retain the initial text, to clearly distinguish the application form the platform software, which is also non-web software.
Chris Loiselle Prefer Option 1 - current text. Do not make any changes.
Phil Day Prefer Option 1 - current text. Do not make any changes. But would also accept option 2 if that is the consensus
Bruce Bailey Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. The start of the note is not needed and confuses things. "“if non-web software is an application” is equivalent to “if software is software”. How about:

NOTE 3: Passwords used to unlock the underlying platform software are out of scope for this requirement. Such passwords are not under the control of the non-web software.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. I like Option 3
Fernanda Bonnin Prefer Option 1 - current text. Do not make any changes. opt 2 says: "platform software that sits beneath the software application", is it clear that there can be multiple layers of platform software? if yes, also fine with opt 2.

Loïc Martínez Normand

12. Issue 465 Part 4 (Issue answer): Seeking clarity for key term 'underlying platform software'

Review the proposed issue answer in the Google doc proposed answer to Issue 465 (to post in comments). Indicate whether this is sufficient to post as the TF answer in the issue. If edits are needed, propose them in the Google doc in the section Option 2: Something else.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
The proposed issue answer is sufficient, as-is. 5
The proposed issue answer is sufficient, with edits. 1
Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. 1

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

Details

Responder Issue 465 Part 4 (Issue answer): Seeking clarity for key term 'underlying platform software'Comments
Gregg Vanderheiden Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. I have added edits to option 1 to make it easier to read. I did them as tracked changes rather than a whole new one because it would be too hard to see what the difference was on something that big.

Mike Pluke The proposed issue answer is sufficient, as-is.
Chris Loiselle The proposed issue answer is sufficient, as-is.
Phil Day The proposed issue answer is sufficient, as-is.
Bruce Bailey The proposed issue answer is sufficient, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark The proposed issue answer is sufficient, as-is.
Fernanda Bonnin The proposed issue answer is sufficient, with edits. From the response: "The dotted green underline on “underlying” can be hard to discern from the medium gray underline used for the link to the key term “platform software”."

Are we using color to convey meaning? does the dotted green underline has a 3:1 contrast of the medium grey underline?
Loïc Martínez Normand

13. Issue 466: Closed functionality list - suggested additions

Read and understand Issue 466. Review the two proposals in the Google doc section proposed changes as a result of Issue 466. The proposed Option 2 changes can be read in context of the "closed functionality" definition in the document built from PR 486. Indicate which option you prefer and whether it is ready to merge into the editor's draft. If edits are needed, propose them in the Google doc in the section Option 3: Something else.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Option 1 - current text. Do not make any changes.
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 5
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. 1

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

Details

Responder Issue 466: Closed functionality list - suggested additionsComments
Gregg Vanderheiden Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. option 2 with the following ending to the telecom item
telephony devices such as internet phones, feature phones, smartphones, and phone-enabled tablets (which may include AT in their systems but are themselves often closed for other software assistive technologies)
Mike Pluke Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Phil Day Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Bruce Bailey Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. I am also okay with Option 1.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Fernanda Bonnin
Loïc Martínez Normand

14. Issue 464: Suggest slight clarification of audience and outcomes

Read Issue 464. Review the three proposals in the Google doc proposed content changes to address Issue 464. Indicate which option you prefer and whether it is ready to merge into the editor's draft. If edits are needed, propose them in the Google doc in the section Option 4: Something else.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Option 1 - current text. Do not make any changes.
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Prefer option 3, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 2
Prefer option 3, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. 5
Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc.

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

Details

Responder Issue 464: Suggest slight clarification of audience and outcomesComments
Gregg Vanderheiden Prefer option 3, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. +1 Phil
Mike Pluke Prefer option 3, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. +1 to Phil's edit.
Chris Loiselle Prefer option 3, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Phil Day Prefer option 3, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. I thought the consensus was to drop the addition of "commonly expressed by the acronym, POUR", and only add the sentence "Developers are also strongly encouraged to obtain testing input from persons with disabilities using applications and content. "

Either way, I would be happy to accept option 2 (either as written, or with this edit)
Bruce Bailey Prefer option 3, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. +1 to Phil's edit to option 3. I am also okay with option 3 as-is.

Option 2 is not fully baked. Option 3 address the concerns I have with option 2.

At a bare minimum, persons with disabilities -> people with disabilities.

First sentence of Option 2 needs work. I am fine with the main points, and other parts, of option 2.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Prefer option 3, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Fernanda Bonnin Prefer option 3, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. +1 to Phil's comments
Loïc Martínez Normand

15. Issue 463 (Issue answer): Programmatically determine the language of text

Read Issue 463. The proposal is to not make any changes to the WCAG2ICT document and provide the reasoning for no changes in a comment on the issue. Review the proposed issue answer in the Google doc proposed answer to Issue 463. Indicate whether the proposal is ready to post as the WCAG2ICT TF answer in the issue. If you think edits are needed in WCAG2ICT and/or the issue answer needs changes, propose them in the Google doc in the section Draft answer proposal 2: Something else.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree that no WCAG2ICT changes are needed. The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is. 6
Agree that no WCAG2ICT changes are needed. The proposed answer is sufficient, but with edits.
Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. (Changes are needed in WCAG2ICT and/or the proposed issue answer needs major work.) 1

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

Details

Responder Issue 463 (Issue answer): Programmatically determine the language of textComments
Gregg Vanderheiden Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. (Changes are needed in WCAG2ICT and/or the proposed issue answer needs major work.) I would add something like this-- what we have is a bit ambigous. states what but not clearly why
Note that the definition of Heuristic makes it clear it is an inaccurate approximation " not fully optimized, perfected, or rationalized, but is nevertheless "good enough" as an approximation or attribute substitution". Programmatically determined means that is can be exactly determined by software including assistive technologies. Examples of ways to do this today include markup, attributes or technology-specific data structures. Other methods may be possible in the future but they must be accurate and reliable.
Mike Pluke Agree that no WCAG2ICT changes are needed. The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Agree that no WCAG2ICT changes are needed. The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.
Phil Day Agree that no WCAG2ICT changes are needed. The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.
Bruce Bailey Agree that no WCAG2ICT changes are needed. The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is. @GreggV -- I do not think the response benefits from clarifying the definition of heuristic. But I probably won't stop myself from writting something in the GitHub thread.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Agree that no WCAG2ICT changes are needed. The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.
Fernanda Bonnin Agree that no WCAG2ICT changes are needed. The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand

16. Issue 436 part 1 (replacing "user agent"): The definition of 'large scale' needs substitutions or notes

Read Issue 436. Review the proposed changes to 'large scale' definition where 'user agent' is used in the Google doc. Indicate which option you prefer and whether it is ready to merge into the editor's draft. If edits are needed, propose them in the Google doc in the section Option 3: Something else.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Option 1. Do not make any changes.
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 7
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc.

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

Details

Responder Issue 436 part 1 (replacing "user agent"): The definition of 'large scale' needs substitutions or notesComments
Gregg Vanderheiden Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Mike Pluke Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Phil Day Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Bruce Bailey Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Fernanda Bonnin Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand

17. Issue 436 part 2 (Interpreting 'pt' and 'point'): The definition of 'large scale' needs substitutions or notes

This is the second part for addressing issue 436. Review the proposed changes to ‘large scale’ to address ‘pt’ and ‘point’ interpretation in the Google doc. Indicate which option you prefer and whether it is ready to merge into the editor's draft. If edits are needed, propose them in the Google doc in the section Option 3: Something else.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Option 1. Do not make any changes.
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 7
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc.

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

Details

Responder Issue 436 part 2 (Interpreting 'pt' and 'point'): The definition of 'large scale' needs substitutions or notesComments
Gregg Vanderheiden Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Mike Pluke Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Phil Day Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. Would also accept option 1
Bruce Bailey Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Fernanda Bonnin Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand

18. Issue 421 part 1 ('keyboard interface' changes): In definition of 'keyboard interface' and in 2.1.1, "would satisfy the success criterion" is incomplete

Read Issue 421. Review the proposed changes to 'keyboard interface' in the Google doc. Indicate which option you prefer and whether it is ready to merge into the editor's draft. If edits are needed, propose them in the Google doc in the section Option 3: Something else.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Option 0. Do not make any changes.
Prefer option 1, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 1
Prefer option 1, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 4
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. 1
Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc.

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

Details

Responder Issue 421 part 1 ('keyboard interface' changes): In definition of 'keyboard interface' and in 2.1.1, "would satisfy the success criterion" is incompleteComments
Gregg Vanderheiden Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. This looks like an echo of #1 at the top of this page??

just tweak the ie
(i.e., the keyboard interface provided by the platform is where the software accepts text or other keystroke input)
Mike Pluke Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Prefer option 1, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Phil Day Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. Would also accept option 1, but preferred the brevity of 2.
Bruce Bailey Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. I am also okay with option 1.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Fernanda Bonnin
Loïc Martínez Normand

19. Issue 421 part 2 (SC 2.1.1 Keyboard changes): In definition of 'keyboard interface' and in 2.1.1, "would satisfy the success criterion" is incomplete

Review the proposed changes to 2.1.1 Keyboard in the Google doc. Indicate which option you prefer and whether it is ready to merge into the editor's draft. If edits are needed, propose them in the Google doc in the section Option 4: Something else.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Option 0. Do not make any changes. 1
Prefer option 1, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Prefer option 1, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Prefer option 2, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Prefer option 3, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 5
Prefer option 3, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Something else. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc.

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

Details

Responder Issue 421 part 2 (SC 2.1.1 Keyboard changes): In definition of 'keyboard interface' and in 2.1.1, "would satisfy the success criterion" is incompleteComments
Gregg Vanderheiden Prefer option 3, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Mike Pluke Prefer option 3, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Prefer Option 0. Do not make any changes. I am not sure if this link is correct, I am open to polling / voting on call to update my preference on this survey question.
Phil Day Prefer option 3, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. Prefer option 3, but would also accept option 2
Bruce Bailey Prefer option 3, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. I am also okay with option 2.

The adjective "fully" gives me a bit of a pause, but I think that's better than not having an adjective in front of "operable".
Olivia Hogan-Stark Prefer option 3, and it is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Fernanda Bonnin
Loïc Martínez Normand

More details on responses

  • Gregg Vanderheiden: last responded on 29, August 2024 at 06:08 (UTC)
  • Mike Pluke: last responded on 29, August 2024 at 10:32 (UTC)
  • Chris Loiselle: last responded on 30, August 2024 at 12:32 (UTC)
  • Phil Day: last responded on 2, September 2024 at 13:25 (UTC)
  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 4, September 2024 at 13:19 (UTC)
  • Olivia Hogan-Stark: last responded on 4, September 2024 at 14:25 (UTC)
  • Fernanda Bonnin: last responded on 4, September 2024 at 21:45 (UTC)
  • Loïc Martínez Normand: last responded on 4, September 2024 at 22:24 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  2. Mary Jo Mueller
  3. Sam Ogami
  4. Mitchell Evan
  5. Charles Adams
  6. Daniel Montalvo
  7. Shawn Thompson
  8. Laura Miller
  9. Anastasia Lanz
  10. Devanshu Chandra
  11. Bryan Trogdon
  12. Thorsten Katzmann
  13. Tony Holland
  14. Kent Boucher

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.