w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire WCAG2ICT-Review of proposed update to 4.1.3 Status Messages
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: maryjom@us.ibm.com
This questionnaire was open from 2024-02-16 to 2024-02-21.
5 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- 4.1.3 Status Messages - SC word substitution language (excluding the notes)
- 4.1.3 Status Mesages - Notes 1 and 2
- SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - content for 4.1.3 Status Messages
1. 4.1.3 Status Messages - SC word substitution language (excluding the notes)
To preface this review: Issue 216 pointed out that the WCAG2ICT guidance between SCs 4.1.3 Status Messages and 1.4.12 Text Spacing was different. The former was expanding the WCAG scope beyond "content implemented using markup languages" and the latter was not. These should be brought into alignment.
In the 15 February meeting, we discussed whether the expansion of the scope of 4.1.3 Status Messages was within the purview of the Task Force to do. Our Friday sub-group continued that discussion and came to the conclusion that the expansion constitutes a substantive change to the WCAG language - outside of the stated scope of the Task Force. The current proposals were developed as a result and would replace the content currently found in the editor's draft. For reference, here is a link to the text in the editor's draft at Applying SC 4.1.3 Status Messages to Non-web Documents and Software
Read the two options for changing the guidance (excluding the notes, covered in the next survey question) and indicate which you prefer and if you think your preferred proposal is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft. Option 1: 4.1.3 taken literally and Option 2: 4.1.3 contextualized If you think edits are needed, propose them here or in the Google doc.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Prefer option 1, as-is. | 3 |
| Prefer option 1, with edits. (Propose your changes either in the survey or in the Google doc.) | |
| Prefer option 2, as-is. | 2 |
| Prefer option 2, with edits. (Propose your changes either in the survey or in the Google doc.) | |
| This proposal isn't ready yet. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. |
Details
| Responder | 4.1.3 Status Messages - SC word substitution language (excluding the notes) | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Phil Day | Prefer option 1, as-is. | But would also accept 2 |
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | Prefer option 1, as-is. | |
| Chris Loiselle | Prefer option 2, as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | Prefer option 1, as-is. | I am also okay with option 2. I think the two options are essentially equivalent, and option 1 is simplier. |
| Loïc Martínez Normand | Prefer option 2, as-is. | I prefer option 2 as its applicability is more precise. But I would accept option 1. |
2. 4.1.3 Status Mesages - Notes 1 and 2
Review the notes in the two proposals (links in previous question).
Indicate the readiness to incorporate Notes 1 and 2 into the editor's draft. Suggest any edits or changes in the Google doc.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Notes 1 and 2 are ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is. | 5 |
| Notes 1 and 2 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, with the changes proposed in the Google doc. | |
| This proposal isn't ready yet. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. |
Details
| Responder | 4.1.3 Status Mesages - Notes 1 and 2 | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Phil Day | Notes 1 and 2 are ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is. | |
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | Notes 1 and 2 are ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is. | |
| Chris Loiselle | Notes 1 and 2 are ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | Notes 1 and 2 are ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is. | |
| Loïc Martínez Normand | Notes 1 and 2 are ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is. |
3. SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - content for 4.1.3 Status Messages
This question is about the the content proposed for SC 4.1.3 Status Messages that will go into the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section.
See the google doc section heading SC Problematic for closed functionality - content for 4.1.3. We have 2 options and the only difference is the second proposal removed the second sentence. The thinking is that there are mobile applications and TV applications implemented using markup languages, so the TF shouldn't speculate the prevalence of such applications. Indicate your option preference and the readiness to incorporate this content into the editor's draft.Suggest edits or changes in the Google doc.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I prefer Option 1, as-is. | |
| I prefer Option 1, with the edits proposed in the Google doc. | |
| I prefer Option 2, as-is. | 5 |
| I prefer Option 2, with edits proposed in the Google doc. | |
| This proposal isn't ready yet. Provide your alternate proposal in the Google doc. |
Details
| Responder | SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - content for 4.1.3 Status Messages | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Phil Day | I prefer Option 2, as-is. | But would also accept option 1 |
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | I prefer Option 2, as-is. | |
| Chris Loiselle | I prefer Option 2, as-is. | |
| Bruce Bailey | I prefer Option 2, as-is. | I strongly prefer Option 2, as-is. Sentence is unnecessary editorial, and "not typically" is speculation. |
| Loïc Martínez Normand | I prefer Option 2, as-is. |
More details on responses
- Phil Day: last responded on 19, February 2024 at 11:28 (UTC)
- Olivia Hogan-Stark: last responded on 19, February 2024 at 15:26 (UTC)
- Chris Loiselle: last responded on 20, February 2024 at 14:08 (UTC)
- Bruce Bailey: last responded on 21, February 2024 at 18:29 (UTC)
- Loïc Martínez Normand: last responded on 21, February 2024 at 23:33 (UTC)
Non-responders
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
- Gregg Vanderheiden
- Shadi Abou-Zahra
- Mary Jo Mueller
- Mike Pluke
- Sam Ogami
- Mitchell Evan
- Charles Adams
- Daniel Montalvo
- Fernanda Bonnin
- Shawn Thompson
- Laura Miller
- Devanshu Chandra
- Bryan Trogdon
- Thorsten Katzmann
- Tony Holland
- 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