W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire WCAG2ICT - Review proposed changes to the editor's draft

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 2024-05-13 to 2024-05-16.

8 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Proposed editor's draft update: (1 of 3) Guidance for 1.4.4 Resize Text due to Issue 4
  2. Proposed editor's draft update: (2 of 3) Guidance for 1.4.4 Resize Text due to Issue 4
  3. Proposed editor's draft update: (3 of 3) Guidance for 1.4.4 Resize Text due to Issue 4
  4. Proposed editor's draft update: SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 1.4.10 Reflow
  5. Proposed editor's draft update: WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 Guidance for 4.1.1 Parsing
  6. Proposed editor's draft update: Guidance for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)
  7. Proposed editor's draft update: Guidance for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication
  8. Proposed editor's draft update: Edit bullet in Comments on Conformance section
  9. Proposed editor's draft update: Edit SC problematic for closed functionality bullet on 2.4.2 Page Titled

1. Proposed editor's draft update: (1 of 3) Guidance for 1.4.4 Resize Text due to Issue 4

When asked if there were changes needed to 1.4.4 Resize text guidance, survey results had a few proposals which we refined last Friday. This and the next couple of questions will ask you to review 3 proposals (A, B, and C) and respond to the question specific to that proposal.


This is the first question. Review Options 1 and 2 in Proposal A: Simplify or remove Note 1.

Indicate which option you prefer. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Proposal A Option 1, as-is. 2
Prefer Proposal A Option 1, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.)
Prefer Proposal A Option 2, remove the note. 6
Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.)

Details

Responder Proposed editor's draft update: (1 of 3) Guidance for 1.4.4 Resize Text due to Issue 4Comments
Phil Day Prefer Proposal A Option 2, remove the note. But also happy with option 1 if that is the consensus.
Sam Ogami Prefer Proposal A Option 2, remove the note. My preferences: 1st remove the note. The utility of the note is dated and no longer relevant. 2nd Option 1
Bruce Bailey Prefer Proposal A Option 1, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Prefer Proposal A Option 2, remove the note. Still not clear on what software players are as a defined term, thus recommend removing note.
Mike Pluke Prefer Proposal A Option 2, remove the note.
Loïc Martínez Normand Prefer Proposal A Option 2, remove the note. I can accept option 1 it that is the consensus.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Prefer Proposal A Option 1, as-is.
Shadi Abou-Zahra Prefer Proposal A Option 2, remove the note. Agree with keeping as-is too.

2. Proposed editor's draft update: (2 of 3) Guidance for 1.4.4 Resize Text due to Issue 4

This is the second question regarding possible guidance changes for 1.4.4 Resize Text.


Review Option 1 in Proposal B: Small clarification Note 2.

Indicate whether you agree with making this change. If further edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Proposal B Option 1, as-is. 8
Prefer Proposal B Option 1, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.)
Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.)

Details

Responder Proposed editor's draft update: (2 of 3) Guidance for 1.4.4 Resize Text due to Issue 4Comments
Phil Day Prefer Proposal B Option 1, as-is.
Sam Ogami Prefer Proposal B Option 1, as-is.
Bruce Bailey Prefer Proposal B Option 1, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Prefer Proposal B Option 1, as-is.
Mike Pluke Prefer Proposal B Option 1, as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand Prefer Proposal B Option 1, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Prefer Proposal B Option 1, as-is.
Shadi Abou-Zahra Prefer Proposal B Option 1, as-is.

3. Proposed editor's draft update: (3 of 3) Guidance for 1.4.4 Resize Text due to Issue 4

This is the third and final question regarding possible guidance changes for 1.4.4 Resize Text.


Review Option 1 in Proposal C: Add new note reflecting our Issue 4 reply to Point 3 that was agreed to in a Task force decision on response to Point 3 from 9 May.

Indicate whether you agree with adding this note. If further edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Agree to add the new note in proposal C Option 1, as-is. 8
Agree to add the new note proposal C Option 1, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.)
Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.)

Details

Responder Proposed editor's draft update: (3 of 3) Guidance for 1.4.4 Resize Text due to Issue 4Comments
Phil Day Agree to add the new note in proposal C Option 1, as-is.
Sam Ogami Agree to add the new note in proposal C Option 1, as-is.
Bruce Bailey Agree to add the new note in proposal C Option 1, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Agree to add the new note in proposal C Option 1, as-is.
Mike Pluke Agree to add the new note in proposal C Option 1, as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand Agree to add the new note in proposal C Option 1, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Agree to add the new note in proposal C Option 1, as-is.
Shadi Abou-Zahra Agree to add the new note in proposal C Option 1, as-is.

4. Proposed editor's draft update: SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 1.4.10 Reflow

For the 1.4.10 Reflow content in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section, the previously surveyed content has been updated per the input received. Please review the updated proposal named Option 2: Edited Option 1 per previous survey results.

Indicate whether this updated content is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Option 2, as-is. 7
Prefer Option 2, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) 1
Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.)

Details

Responder Proposed editor's draft update: SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 1.4.10 ReflowComments
Phil Day Prefer Option 2, as-is.
Sam Ogami Prefer Option 2, as-is.
Bruce Bailey Prefer Option 2, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Prefer Option 2, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) Do we want to include the long phrasing for ICT and UI outside just using abbreviations ? Otherwise, this reads well.
Mike Pluke Prefer Option 2, as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand Prefer Option 2, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Prefer Option 2, as-is.
Shadi Abou-Zahra Prefer Option 2, as-is.

5. Proposed editor's draft update: WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 Guidance for 4.1.1 Parsing

This proposal is to modify the guidance for 4.1.1 Parsing per comments and input received in the AG WG review of this SC in December. This proposed content has been agreed with the AG WG reviewers who had not approved the guidance changes we had made from the 2013 content. NOTE: The WCAG 2.2 part of the 4.1.1 Parsing guidance has not been changed.

Please review the new proposal based on input from AG WG commenters. If you wish to read it in-context, see Applying SC 4.1.1 Parsing to Non-Web Documents and Software from PR 338.

Indicate whether this updated content is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
The proposed content is ready to incorporate, as-is. 8
The proposed content can be incorporated, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.)
Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.)

Details

Responder Proposed editor's draft update: WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 Guidance for 4.1.1 ParsingComments
Phil Day The proposed content is ready to incorporate, as-is. Proposed new content seems rather long, but happy to accept to keep things moving.
Sam Ogami The proposed content is ready to incorporate, as-is.
Bruce Bailey The proposed content is ready to incorporate, as-is.
Chris Loiselle The proposed content is ready to incorporate, as-is.
Mike Pluke The proposed content is ready to incorporate, as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand The proposed content is ready to incorporate, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark The proposed content is ready to incorporate, as-is.
Shadi Abou-Zahra The proposed content is ready to incorporate, as-is.

6. Proposed editor's draft update: Guidance for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)

Michael Gower brought a proposal for an additional note to include in the guidance for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum). Review the proposals in the Google doc for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum).

Indicate which option you prefer. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Proposal 0, don't add the note.
Prefer Proposal 1, as-is. 3
Prefer Proposal 1, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.)
Prefer Proposal 2, as-is. 3
Prefer Proposal 2, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.)
Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.)

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

Details

Responder Proposed editor's draft update: Guidance for 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)Comments
Phil Day Prefer Proposal 2, as-is. I found Proposal 1 to be more difficult to read.
Sam Ogami
Bruce Bailey Prefer Proposal 1, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Prefer Proposal 1, as-is.
Mike Pluke Prefer Proposal 1, as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand Prefer Proposal 2, as-is. But I can accept Proposal 1 if that is the consensus.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Prefer Proposal 2, as-is.
Shadi Abou-Zahra

7. Proposed editor's draft update: Guidance for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication

Shadi brought a proposal for an additional note to include in the guidance for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication. Review the proposals in the Google doc for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication.

Indicate which option you prefer. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Prefer Option 1, as-is. 3
Prefer Option 1, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.)
Prefer Proposal 2, do not add the note. 4
Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) 1

Details

Responder Proposed editor's draft update: Guidance for 3.3.8 Accessible AuthenticationComments
Phil Day Prefer Proposal 2, do not add the note. I'm not sure I understand the problem that the new note solves
Sam Ogami Prefer Option 1, as-is.
Bruce Bailey Prefer Option 1, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Prefer Proposal 2, do not add the note. Need more context to use case to prefer option 1, thus chose not to add the note due to not having enough context on example.
Mike Pluke Prefer Proposal 2, do not add the note. I too was unclear about the context of the proposed note.
Loïc Martínez Normand Prefer Proposal 2, do not add the note. It seems to me that the additional note creates an additional exception (first use) and thus modifies the normative text. I prefer not to have this new note.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Prefer Option 1, as-is.
Shadi Abou-Zahra Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) This requirement assumes the existence of password managers, typically one that works with a browser. This is the case on web and documents but not necessarily software. It's not the that the content author is actively blocking password managers but situations where password managers do not exist. One example is a television or other device with no password managers for its operating system, or where you cannot (easily) install such password managers. Another example is a device that requires authentication during first installation to customize the device to your own profile but does not yet have the operating system fully loaded to allow password managers to work. Maybe this can be added to Note 3 but I think it's important to clarify that the underlying assumption of password managers does not always apply to software, and is something outside the control of the content author.

8. Proposed editor's draft update: Edit bullet in Comments on Conformance section

Proposed edits to point number 4 are more substantive and can be read in-context in the Comments on conformance section and the comments on definitions. The exact changes that were made in this pull request can be seen on line 9 of the file named comments-on-conformance.md. NOTE: The rest of the edits in this PR are purely editorial, and the editors have reviewed them.

Original text for bullet #4: In WCAG 2, when conformance relies on accessibility features of the platform (i.e. browser for web content) or on assistive technologies, WCAG 2 requires that there are assistive technologies, etc. that work with the product (web page). That is, conformance with WCAG 2 requires that the approaches used are supported by assistive technologies.

Edited text for bullet #4: In WCAG 2, when conformance depends upon accessibility features of the platform (i.e. browser for web content) or on assistive technologies, WCAG 2 requires that there are assistive technologies, etc. that work with the product (web page). That is, conformance with WCAG 2 requires that only accessibility-supported ways of using technologies are relied upon to satisfy the success criteria. WCAG 2 requires that any information or functionality that is provided in a way that is not accessibility supported is also available in a way that is accessibility supported.

Indicate whether you agree with these changes and they can be merged. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
The proposed changes to are ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 3
The proposed changes are ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
The changes to bullet #4 aren't needed, do not incorporate them. 2
Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) 1

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

Details

Responder Proposed editor's draft update: Edit bullet in Comments on Conformance sectionComments
Phil Day The changes to bullet #4 aren't needed, do not incorporate them. I'm not sure what the proposed changes add apart from making it more difficult to read, but happy to accept if everyone thinks that they are useful.
Sam Ogami The changes to bullet #4 aren't needed, do not incorporate them.
Bruce Bailey The proposed changes to are ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) No comment.
Mike Pluke
Loïc Martínez Normand The proposed changes to are ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark The proposed changes to are ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Shadi Abou-Zahra

9. Proposed editor's draft update: Edit SC problematic for closed functionality bullet on 2.4.2 Page Titled

There is one more proposed substantive update to the SC Problematic for closed functionality proposed in PR 352 line 43 which is the guidance for 2.4.2 Page Titled, and this PR shows the exact changes. To read the changes in context, go to the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section and scroll to 2.4.2 Page Titled to review it. The other changes in this PR are purely editorial and do not require approval outside of the editors.

The original and proposed changes, in bold, are also shown below:

Original text for 2.4.2 Page Titled: —Where the software is part of a product that provides a single function, or has a menu-driven interface, there is no need for a title.

Edited text for 2.4.2 Page Titled: — Where the software is part of a product that provides a single function, or has a menu-driven interface, there is no need for a title and the intent of this success criterion would be met.

Indicate whether you agree with these changes and they can be merged. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
The proposed changes to 2.4.2 are ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 6
The proposed changes to 2.4.2 are ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
The changes to 2.4.2 aren't needed, do not incorporate them.
Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.)

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

Details

Responder Proposed editor's draft update: Edit SC problematic for closed functionality bullet on 2.4.2 Page TitledComments
Phil Day The proposed changes to 2.4.2 are ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Sam Ogami The proposed changes to 2.4.2 are ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Bruce Bailey The proposed changes to 2.4.2 are ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Chris Loiselle The proposed changes to 2.4.2 are ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Mike Pluke The proposed changes to 2.4.2 are ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Loïc Martínez Normand The proposed changes to 2.4.2 are ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark
Shadi Abou-Zahra

More details on responses

  • Phil Day: last responded on 14, May 2024 at 16:17 (UTC)
  • Sam Ogami: last responded on 14, May 2024 at 16:55 (UTC)
  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 14, May 2024 at 22:03 (UTC)
  • Chris Loiselle: last responded on 15, May 2024 at 16:21 (UTC)
  • Mike Pluke: last responded on 15, May 2024 at 17:58 (UTC)
  • Loïc Martínez Normand: last responded on 15, May 2024 at 18:55 (UTC)
  • Olivia Hogan-Stark: last responded on 15, May 2024 at 20:58 (UTC)
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra: last responded on 16, May 2024 at 10:50 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Gregg Vanderheiden
  2. Mary Jo Mueller
  3. Mitchell Evan
  4. Charles Adams
  5. Daniel Montalvo
  6. Fernanda Bonnin
  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.