W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT TF Weekly Survey - 8 February 2017

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email addresses: team-wcag-act-surveys@w3.org,maryjom@us.ibm.com,wilco.fiers@deque.com

This questionnaire was open from 2017-02-06 to 2017-02-08.

7 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Review Proposal for Issue #39: Rework Rule Description
  2. Review Proposal for Issue #38: Section 7.3 Accuracy Benchmarking
  3. Review Proposal for Issue #33: Section 6.1 Output Data
  4. Review Proposal for Issue #27: Section 4.2 Accessibility Support Data
  5. Review Proposal for Issue #34: Section 6.2 Rule Aggregation

1. Review Proposal for Issue #39: Rework Rule Description

Review the proposed content to rework Rule Description in pull request 42. Should pull request 42 be merged?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 3
Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request. 3
No. I have left reasons for my objection in the comments of the pull request. 1

Details

Responder Review Proposal for Issue #39: Rework Rule DescriptionComments
Shadi Abou-Zahra Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.
Romain Deltour Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.
Charu Pandhi Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request. Have pushed updates based on the review.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Alan Smith Yes
Maureen Kraft No. I have left reasons for my objection in the comments of the pull request. I still believe this duplicates the Rule Outline too much. Maybe I'm not seeing the latest updates.

2. Review Proposal for Issue #38: Section 7.3 Accuracy Benchmarking

Review the proposed content for Issue #38: Generate content for section 7.3 Accuracy Benchmarking in pull request 47. Should pull request 47 be merged?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 2
Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request. 5
No. I have left reasons for my objection in the comments of the pull request.

Details

Responder Review Proposal for Issue #38: Section 7.3 Accuracy BenchmarkingComments
Shadi Abou-Zahra Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.
Romain Deltour Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.
Charu Pandhi Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.
Wilco Fiers Yes
Alan Smith Yes
Maureen Kraft Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.

3. Review Proposal for Issue #33: Section 6.1 Output Data

Review the proposed content for Issue #33: Generate content for section 6.1 Output Data in pull request 41. Should pull request 41 be merged?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 3
Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request. 3
No. I have left reasons for my objection in the comments of the pull request.

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

Details

Responder Review Proposal for Issue #33: Section 6.1 Output DataComments
Shadi Abou-Zahra Yes
Romain Deltour Yes
Charu Pandhi Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.
Wilco Fiers Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.
Alan Smith Yes
Maureen Kraft

4. Review Proposal for Issue #27: Section 4.2 Accessibility Support Data

Review the proposed content for Issue #27: Draft section 4.2 Accessibility Support Data in pull request 32. Should pull request 32 be merged?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 5
Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request. 1
No. I have left reasons for my objection in the comments of the pull request.

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

Details

Responder Review Proposal for Issue #27: Section 4.2 Accessibility Support DataComments
Shadi Abou-Zahra Yes
Romain Deltour Yes
Charu Pandhi Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.
Wilco Fiers Yes
Alan Smith Yes
Maureen Kraft

5. Review Proposal for Issue #34: Section 6.2 Rule Aggregation

Review the proposed content for Issue #34: Generate initial content for section 6.2 Rule Aggregation in pull request 46. Should pull request 46 be merged?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 1
Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request. 4
No. I have left reasons for my objection in the comments of the pull request.

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

Details

Responder Review Proposal for Issue #34: Section 6.2 Rule AggregationComments
Shadi Abou-Zahra Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.
Romain Deltour Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.
Charu Pandhi
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.
Wilco Fiers Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.
Alan Smith Yes
Maureen Kraft

More details on responses

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Katie Haritos-Shea
  2. David MacDonald
  3. Alastair Campbell
  4. Detlev Fischer
  5. Chris Loiselle
  6. Jonathan Avila
  7. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  8. Charles Adams
  9. Kathy Eng
  10. Daniel Montalvo
  11. Helen Burge
  12. Todd Libby
  13. Thomas Brunet
  14. Catherine Droege
  15. Suji Sreerama
  16. Shane Dittmar
  17. Nayan Padrai
  18. Sage Keriazes
  19. Shunguo Yan

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.