w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire WCAG2ICT - Follow-up review of updated answers to public comments and SOTD
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 2024-05-05 to 2024-05-08.
5 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Public commments: Proposed answer to Issue 226
- Public commments: Proposed answer to Issue 257
- Public commments: Proposed answer to Issue 221
- Review: SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 1.4.10 Reflow
- Review: Proposed updates to Status of this Document
1. Public commments: Proposed answer to Issue 226
The WCAG2ICT Task Force has already agreed to and incorporated changes to the guidance in the document to address most of the 1.4.10 Reflow public comments. The first 2 questions in this survey are to review proposed responses to be put into the GitHub issues.
Review the Updated proposal for the TF answer to Issue 226 (Option 2). The changes from the proposal reviewed in last week's survey are shown in bold text. For reference, here is a link to Issue 226: Where a technology does not support an SC.
Indicate whether using Option 2 as the issue answer is sufficient. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | 5 |
| Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) |
Details
| Responder | Public commments: Proposed answer to Issue 226 | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Bailey | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | In the Google doc, I suggested two edits: "conforming content" instead of "accessible content" and deleting "On the other hand" from the start of the first sentence in the second paragraph. Neither of my edits is blocking for me. |
| Sam Ogami | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | with Bruce edits |
| Chris Loiselle | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | Selecting this choice , to align with Bruce's edits to the Google Doc. |
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | +1 to Bruces edits. I had a minor change recommendation to unbold part (see in doc). |
| Mitchell Evan | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | With Bruce's edits. I'm not clear what Olivia's edit is, so I'll wait till our call for that detail. |
2. Public commments: Proposed answer to Issue 257
The agreed update to the 1.4.10 Reflow notes has been incorporated into the editor's draft per a previous TF resolution. This survey question is regarding the answer to put into issue 257. Everyone that responded to last week's survey liked the proposal, and Mitch proposed an addition of one sentence in the "Answer to Issue 2" part of the proposed response. The added text is highlighted in the proposed response using a comment from Mary Jo.
Review the Proposed TF answer to Issue 257. For reference, here is a link to Issue 257: Clarity on testing 1.4.10 Reflow on mobile devices.
Indicate whether this issue answer is sufficient, with Mitch's edits. If further edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | 3 |
| The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | 2 |
| Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) |
Details
| Responder | Public commments: Proposed answer to Issue 257 | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Bailey | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Sam Ogami | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Chris Loiselle | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | Did we want to add the actual versions to the answer that mentions "Having said that, it is our understanding that current versions of Android and iOS do support 320 CSS pixel width equivalent when display scaling is applied." ? |
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | Agree with Chris. Would be nice to include specific versions versions numbers or even just the date – "Having said that, it is our understanding that, as of May 2024, current versions of Android and iOS do support 320 CSS pixel width equivalent when display scaling is applied." |
| Mitchell Evan | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | Fine with or without an explicitly stated date. The post date of the comment gives a date for context. |
3. Public commments: Proposed answer to Issue 221
Based on the survey results on the proposed TF answer to Issue 221, the TF was in agreement with the response, provided we replace the quoted content from the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality for 1.4.10 Reflow with whatever changes we agree to as a result of this survey.
Indicate whether the
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | 4 |
| The proposed answer is sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | |
| Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) | 1 |
Details
| Responder | Public commments: Proposed answer to Issue 221 | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Bailey | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Sam Ogami | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Chris Loiselle | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | The proposed answer is sufficient as-is. | |
| Mitchell Evan | Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) | Maybe it's fine... I ran out of time to confirm, and there's no "reset my radio button" option |
4. Review: SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 1.4.10 Reflow
When working on Issue 221 and scrutinizing the SC problematic for closed functionality, there may need to be changes to the existing editor's draft content. Please review the existing text and proposal for a potential change to 1.4.10 Reflow SC problematic for closed content as modified per comments in the previous survey.
Indicate which proposal you prefer and whether the proposed content is acceptable as-is. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Prefer Option 0, as-is. | |
| Prefer Option 0, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | |
| Prefer Option 1, as-is. | |
| Prefer Option 1, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | 5 |
| Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) |
Details
| Responder | Review: SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - 1.4.10 Reflow | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Bailey | Prefer Option 1, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | The Option 1 note is not quite explicit enough IMHO, so in the Google doc I proposed a concluding phrase. The significance of "may be considered essential" should be explained (as meeting the SC). |
| Sam Ogami | Prefer Option 1, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | OK with Bruce edits |
| Chris Loiselle | Prefer Option 1, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | |
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | Prefer Option 1, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | +1 to Bruce's edits |
| Mitchell Evan | Prefer Option 1, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | (1) Remove "or font size". I don't believe setting the font size changes the viewport size. (2) Remove the word "automatically". Just "satisfied" (under the stated conditions). |
5. Review: Proposed updates to Status of this Document
Review the proposed updates to the Status of this Document section proposed in PR 344 which was edited changing "intent" to "purpose" per a comment in last week's survey. You can read the preview of the changes in-context at Full SOTD section with changes incorporated.
Indicate the proposed changes are sufficient. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| The proposed changes are sufficient as-is. | 5 |
| The proposed changes are sufficient as-is, with edits. (Provide detailed edits in the survey or the Google doc.) | |
| Something else. (Provide your detailed alternate proposal.) |
Details
| Responder | Review: Proposed updates to Status of this Document | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Bailey | The proposed changes are sufficient as-is. | |
| Sam Ogami | The proposed changes are sufficient as-is. | |
| Chris Loiselle | The proposed changes are sufficient as-is. | |
| Olivia Hogan-Stark | The proposed changes are sufficient as-is. | |
| Mitchell Evan | The proposed changes are sufficient as-is. |
More details on responses
- Bruce Bailey: last responded on 7, May 2024 at 21:04 (UTC)
- Sam Ogami: last responded on 8, May 2024 at 01:03 (UTC)
- Chris Loiselle: last responded on 8, May 2024 at 14:04 (UTC)
- Olivia Hogan-Stark: last responded on 8, May 2024 at 17:14 (UTC)
- Mitchell Evan: last responded on 8, May 2024 at 19:59 (UTC)
Non-responders
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
- Gregg Vanderheiden
- Shadi Abou-Zahra
- Mary Jo Mueller
- Loïc Martínez Normand
- Mike Pluke
- Charles Adams
- Daniel Montalvo
- Fernanda Bonnin
- Shawn Thompson
- Laura Miller
- Anastasia Lanz
- Devanshu Chandra
- Bryan Trogdon
- Thorsten Katzmann
- Tony Holland
- Kent Boucher
- Phil Day
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