W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire WCAG2ICT - (Group 1) Review changes due to comments on second public 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 2024-07-23 to 2024-08-07.

7 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Issue 397 - Key Terms: "virtual keyboard" proposed rephrasing of examples
  2. Issue 397 - Review proposed TF answer for a comment in the issue
  3. Issue 414 - Issues with the 'platform software' notes for 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.7
  4. Issue 419 - Definition of 'style properties' needs different word substitution
  5. Issue 428 - SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - add 3.2.6 Consistent Help
  6. Issue 431 - 2.5.2: An example has been inserted into a WCAG Note and not listed as a substitution
  7. Issue 446 - Privacy considerations
  8. Issue 446 - Review proposed TF answer for a comment in the issue

1. Issue 397 - Key Terms: "virtual keyboard" proposed rephrasing of examples

A comment was made in the AG WG review of the WCAG2ICT definition of "virtual keyboard". See Issue 397 for details of the comment. The current text in the definition of "virtual keyboard" is in the Google doc followed by four proposals for changes to the Note to address issue 397.



Review the proposals and indicate which you prefer, and whether the proposed changes are ready to merge into the editor's draft. Provide detailed edits either in the survey or the Google doc to starting at Option 5: add new proposals here.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Option 1 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 1
Option 1 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Option 3 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 1
Option 3 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. 1
Option 4 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 2
Option 4 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.

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

Details

Responder Issue 397 - Key Terms: "virtual keyboard" proposed rephrasing of examplesComments
Phil Day Option 3 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. Would also accept 4
Chris Loiselle Option 1 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Option 3 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. I like direction of three, but would reword and put list in alphabetical order:

"Some common ways to generate "keystroke" output for virtual keyboards include eye-gaze, morse code, sounds, speech, and switches (e.g., sip-and-puff)."


Bruce Bailey Option 4 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. Option 4 with Olivia's edits is also good.
Mary Jo Mueller
Mike Pluke Option 4 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Gregg Vanderheiden Go with Options 5b. Option 4 includes hardware keyboards and this is a definition of Virtual Keyboards.

2. Issue 397 - Review proposed TF answer for a comment in the issue

Review the proposed answer to Issue 397 and indicate whether it is sufficient or if edits are needed. Provide detailed edits either in the survey or the Google doc starting at Option 2: Add alternate proposal here.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is. 5
The proposed answer is sufficient, with edits. Propose edits in the Google doc or in the survey.
The proposed answer is not sufficient. Make your alternate proposal in the Google doc. 1

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

Details

Responder Issue 397 - Review proposed TF answer for a comment in the issueComments
Phil Day The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is. Assuming finalised content gets added!
Chris Loiselle The proposed answer is not sufficient. Make your alternate proposal in the Google doc. What if the result of question 1 is to leave as is? The proposed answer would not work as currently written as we may not change anything. Apologies if I'm not following the logic here!
Olivia Hogan-Stark The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.
Bruce Bailey The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.
Mary Jo Mueller
Mike Pluke The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.
Gregg Vanderheiden The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.

3. Issue 414 - Issues with the 'platform software' notes for 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.7

Issue 414 indicates that some of the notes regarding "platform software" may be considered inaccurate / confusing in how they are written. Since similar notes appear on three different SCs (2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.7) we'll be looking at 2.5.2 as an example. See the relevant excerpts from WCAG2ICT's current text for the SC in the Google doc section Example: 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation.

Note also that WCAG2ICT had redefined the Key Term 'user agent' which should be taken into consideration during this review.


Review the google doc proposed changes for SC 2.5.2. If accepted, similar changes would be made in SCs 2.5.1 and 2.5.7.


Indicate which proposal you prefer, and whether the changes are ready to merge into the editor's draft. Provide edits needed either in the survey or the Google doc or an additional proposal starting at Proposal 3: Add new proposal here.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Option 1 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Option 1 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 5
Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Something else is needed. Make your proposal in the Google doc.

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

Details

Responder Issue 414 - Issues with the 'platform software' notes for 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.7Comments
Phil Day Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. Would also accept option 1 (leave as is)
Chris Loiselle Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. Leaning towards this but can be influenced by majority of survey responses.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Bruce Bailey Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Mary Jo Mueller
Mike Pluke Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Gregg Vanderheiden I cannot figure out what the options are or what they would look like. The proposed text for 1 and 2 are identical. And you say " You’ll need to scroll down to the (for non-web software) part to see the notes this talks about." but you don't make that a link and I have no idea where to scroll down to??? Maybe just me - but I will defer to those who understand this one.

4. Issue 419 - Definition of 'style properties' needs different word substitution

Issue 419 suggests a change to the definition of 'style property', since some non-web software applications do their own rendering of content. For reference, the google doc has the original WCAG definition of 'style property'. Review the two options in the Google doc section titled proposed changes to WCAG2ICT 'style property'.


Indicate which proposal you prefer, and whether the changes are ready to merge into the editor's draft. Provide edits needed either in the survey or the Google doc or an additional proposal starting at Option 3: Add new proposal here.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Option 1 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Option 1 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 5
Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. 1
Something else is needed. Make your proposal in the Google doc.

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

Details

Responder Issue 419 - Definition of 'style properties' needs different word substitutionComments
Phil Day Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Chris Loiselle Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Bruce Bailey Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Mary Jo Mueller
Mike Pluke Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Gregg Vanderheiden Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. need to move the "OR"
e.g. via user agent, platform software, or other software interface settings, user style sheets) becomes e.g. via user agent, platform software, other software interface settings, or user style sheets)

5. Issue 428 - SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - add 3.2.6 Consistent Help

We discussed Issue 428 in the meeting on 18 July where the poll indicated a new bullet for 3.2.6 Consistent Help should be added to the Success Criteria Problematic for Closed Functionality section. Review the Google doc proposal for the bullet to add for 3.2.6 Consistent Help.


Indicate if this added bullet is ready to merge into the editor's draft. Provide edits needed either in the survey or the Google doc or an additional proposal starting at Option 2: Add new proposal here.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Option 1 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 6
Option 1 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Something else is needed. Make your proposal in the Google doc.

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

Details

Responder Issue 428 - SC Problematic for Closed Functionality - add 3.2.6 Consistent HelpComments
Phil Day Option 1 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. At the time of answering, there was no content in option 2!
Chris Loiselle Option 1 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Option 1 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Bruce Bailey Option 1 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Mary Jo Mueller FYI, the answers regarding option 2 I had neglected to delete in the survey. It's a copy/paste leftover from copying and modifying the previous question to create this one.
Mike Pluke Option 1 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Gregg Vanderheiden Option 1 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.

6. Issue 431 - 2.5.2: An example has been inserted into a WCAG Note and not listed as a substitution

In Issue 431 it is noted that WCAG2ICT inserted an example into a WCAG Note and didn't list any word substitution. There are three proposals for changes in Pull request 454. You can read the proposals for changes to 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation in the context of the document. Hopefully this isn't too confusing, as described and shown in context in the built document's Applying SC 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation to Non-web Documents and Software section.


Alternatively, the changes are described without showing the actual movement of the example in the Google doc proposed changes to 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation.


Indicate which proposal you prefer and whether it is ready to merge into the editor's draft. Provide edits needed either in the pull request, the survey, or the Google doc starting at Option 4: Add your proposal.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Option 1 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Option 1 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 4
Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Option 3 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 1
Option 3 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits.
Something else is needed. Make your proposal in the Google doc.

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

Details

Responder Issue 431 - 2.5.2: An example has been inserted into a WCAG Note and not listed as a substitutionComments
Phil Day Option 3 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. Would also accept option 2
Chris Loiselle Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Bruce Bailey Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. In the GitHub thread, I favored Option 1. After revisiting, I think Option 2 is better.
Mary Jo Mueller
Mike Pluke Option 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Gregg Vanderheiden Is this the same as issue 414? Will pass here too for same reason.

7. Issue 446 - Privacy considerations

There is a horizontal review issue on privacy considerations - Issue 446 requesting changes to that section of the document. This issue proposes some changes, and an alternate proposal was also created that the issue author agreed to. Therefore, we will review in the Google doc Proposal 2: shorter guidance that sounds less like implementation techniques.



In working on the proposal, it was discovered that WCAG 2.2 has additional pertinent information regarding privacy considerations that WCAG2ICT could reference. The Google doc Proposal 3: Add a note to proposal 2 linking to the WCAG 2.2 privacy section would add that reference.

Indicate which proposal(s) are ready to merge into the editor's draft. Provide edits needed either in the survey or the Google doc or an additional proposal starting at Proposal 4: Add new proposal here.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Proposal 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. Proposal 3 isn't needed. 2
Proposal 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. Proposal 3 isn't needed.
Proposals 2 and 3 are ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. 3
Proposals 2 and 3 are ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. 1
Something else is needed. Make your proposal in the Google doc.

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

Details

Responder Issue 446 - Privacy considerationsComments
Phil Day Proposal 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. Proposal 3 isn't needed.
Chris Loiselle Proposals 2 and 3 are ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark Proposal 2 is ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is. Proposal 3 isn't needed.
Bruce Bailey Proposals 2 and 3 are ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Mary Jo Mueller
Mike Pluke Proposals 2 and 3 are ready to merge into the editor's draft, as-is.
Gregg Vanderheiden Proposals 2 and 3 are ready to merge into the editor's draft, with edits. Proposal 2 should have the following added to the end of the last sentence "... and the data should not be used for any other purpose".

Proposal 3 is find as is and is helpful -- so include it.

8. Issue 446 - Review proposed TF answer for a comment in the issue

Review the proposed answer to Issue 446 and indicate whether it is sufficient or if edits are needed. Provide detailed edits either in the survey or the Google doc starting at Draft answer proposal 2: Add your proposal.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is. 6
The proposed answer is sufficient, with edits. Propose edits in the Google doc or in the survey.
The proposed answer is not sufficient. Make your alternate proposal in the Google doc.

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

Details

Responder Issue 446 - Review proposed TF answer for a comment in the issueComments
Phil Day 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.
Bruce Bailey The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.
Mary Jo Mueller
Mike Pluke The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.
Gregg Vanderheiden The proposed answer is sufficient, as-is.

More details on responses

  • Phil Day: last responded on 2, August 2024 at 12:16 (UTC)
  • Chris Loiselle: last responded on 2, August 2024 at 12:54 (UTC)
  • Olivia Hogan-Stark: last responded on 5, August 2024 at 14:53 (UTC)
  • Bruce Bailey: last responded on 5, August 2024 at 21:25 (UTC)
  • Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 7, August 2024 at 14:42 (UTC)
  • Mike Pluke: last responded on 7, August 2024 at 21:54 (UTC)
  • Gregg Vanderheiden: last responded on 7, August 2024 at 23:24 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Shadi Abou-Zahra
  2. Loïc Martínez Normand
  3. Sam Ogami
  4. Mitchell Evan
  5. Charles Adams
  6. Daniel Montalvo
  7. Fernanda Bonnin
  8. Shawn Thompson
  9. Laura Miller
  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.