W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Accept Equity PR as exploratory content

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2022-09-09 to 2022-09-12.

12 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

1. Comments and Concerns to include into a draft editor's note

Please review the editor's note at the top of the equity section. Are there any additional comments, questions or concerns you wish to include in an editor's note for this exploratory content?

Details

Responder	Comments and Concerns to include into a draft editor's note
Shawn Lauriat
Laura Carlson
Jennifer Strickland	Consider change — to avoid "difference" which feels more divisive than inclusive. "Efforts towards equity must, however, take into account all types of human difference." "Efforts towards equity must, however, consider the spectrum of human experience."
John Rochford
Poornima Badhan Subramanian
Francis Storr
Michael Gower	Expand the term CEPC on first use. Put info on "Equity" definition up front (i.e., paragraph beginning "The term 'Equity' refers to the ability..." Overall, this looks like minutes of a discussion. I suggest the exploratory stuff has some (structure/purpose/areas to address, etc ). I don't think it's likely helpful to anyone consuming this material to just encounter a bunch of questions without a pre-amble. Although not all exploratory content may be assisted by this, perhaps we could have a template that answers the basics and gives some structure (similar to how there are Issue templates that force issue openers to provide some needed context and details so that reviewers of the ticket can more easily consume).
Stefan Schnabel
Gundula Niemann
Jeanne F Spellman
Makoto Ueki	There should be description on what "CEPC" is. I'm not sure if people are familiar with this term.
Jaunita George

2. Add Equity proposal into Requirements as exploratory

Do you support adding PR 654 into the requirements document as Exploratory?

If you answer No, please explain your reasoning and suggest an alternate direction in the comments

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
yes	10
no	2

Details

Responder	Add Equity proposal into Requirements as exploratory	Comments
Shawn Lauriat	yes
Laura Carlson	yes
Jennifer Strickland	yes
John Rochford	yes
Poornima Badhan Subramanian	no	From the questions documented in the Editor's note, I observe that Equity is not one single requirement. This can be a broader topic that might possibly split into different sub-topics e.g. 'WCAG Conformance for various organization types', 'Conformance satisfying different user needs, 'alignment with civil legislation'. Some of them can be incorporated into each of WCAG 3 guidelines, where some of them are applicable as a Overall guide (e.g. 'alignment with civil legislation')
Francis Storr	yes
Michael Gower	no	As per my comments above I think it's pretty important to have some level of context, even to exploratory content. I don't think it would take much to put this into a better state. Maybe some of us could work on a template?
Stefan Schnabel	yes
Gundula Niemann	yes	with adaption: - The term 'socioeconomic' should be written consistently, currently it is written without hyphen in the first nite and with hyphen in the second note. - I feel uncomfortable with "How can we make the use of the guidelines equitable across user needs (i.e., a blind person being able to caption or judge color contrast)?": For captions, it is needed to listen and type. This likely is not issue. Judging visuals might be as hard for a blind person as judging audio is for a deaf person. How about adding 'to the greatest possible extent'? There certainly are boundaries, yet I understand we want to challenge them.
Jeanne F Spellman	yes
Makoto Ueki	yes
Jaunita George	yes

More details on responses

Shawn Lauriat: last responded on 9, September 2022 at 14:38 (UTC)
Laura Carlson: last responded on 9, September 2022 at 15:00 (UTC)
Jennifer Strickland: last responded on 9, September 2022 at 16:12 (UTC)
John Rochford: last responded on 9, September 2022 at 17:27 (UTC)
Poornima Badhan Subramanian: last responded on 9, September 2022 at 20:18 (UTC)
Francis Storr: last responded on 9, September 2022 at 22:13 (UTC)
Michael Gower: last responded on 11, September 2022 at 22:39 (UTC)
Stefan Schnabel: last responded on 12, September 2022 at 12:21 (UTC)
Gundula Niemann: last responded on 12, September 2022 at 13:09 (UTC)
Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 12, September 2022 at 13:19 (UTC)
Makoto Ueki: last responded on 12, September 2022 at 14:21 (UTC)
Jaunita George: last responded on 12, September 2022 at 17:25 (UTC)