W3C

Site Navigation

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 2023-10-20 to 2023-10-25.

5 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Read the draft response to Comment on Issue 226 - Where a technology does not support an SC and indicate if this is a sufficient response or if changes are needed.

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
The proposed response can be sent, as-is.	2
The proposed changes can be sent, with the following changes.	3
The response isn't ready yet.

Responder	Proposed response to Issue 226 - Technologies that don't support an SC	Comments
Bruce Bailey	The proposed response can be sent, as-is.	Editorial: more broadly -> too broadly ?
Phil Day	The proposed response can be sent, as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand	The proposed changes can be sent, with the following changes.	I have two editorial changes: - Change "can not" by "cannot" - Change "criteria" by "criterion" (for concordance) With these changes, the resulting text would be: In other similar instances, we have handled such criteria by failing the application and leaving exceptions to outside policies/laws to address. It is largely believed that allowing for "cannot be applied" would provide opportunities to disregard this criterion more broadly.
Mike Pluke	The proposed changes can be sent, with the following changes.	I agree with the comment, but incorporating Loïc's minor editorials.
Mary Jo Mueller	The proposed changes can be sent, with the following changes.	I like Loic's edits and Bruce's suggestion which would result in: In other similar instances, we have handled such criteria by failing the application and leaving exceptions to outside policies/laws to address. It is largely believed that allowing for "cannot be applied" would provide opportunities to disregard this criterion too broadly.

Read Issue 219 to explain that "not applicable" is a pass. Indicate if the suggested text update is sufficient and ready to merge into the editor's draft.

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
The proposed response can be incorporated into the editor's draft, as-is.	1
The proposed changes can be incorporated into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	4
The proposal isn't ready yet.

Responder	Proposed update to the Comments on Conformance section	Comments
Bruce Bailey	The proposed changes can be incorporated into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	Response should also link to 2.2 definition for satisfies. www.w3.org/tr/wcag22/#dfn-satisfies
Phil Day	The proposed response can be incorporated into the editor's draft, as-is.	I preferred the edited version with the addition of 'where some might consider the criterion "not applicable"'.
Loïc Martínez Normand	The proposed changes can be incorporated into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	I agree with Bruce's comment to link to the definition of "satisfies a success criterion".
Mike Pluke	The proposed changes can be incorporated into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	I prefer the second version of the two alternatives, with Bruce's suggestion implanted.
Mary Jo Mueller	The proposed changes can be incorporated into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	I have created a PR that pulls in Bruce's comment and the edited version so we can read it in-context in the section. See bullet 2 at this link: https://deploy-preview-247--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#comments-on-conformance