- From: David Sloan <dsloan@paciellogroup.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 09:35:48 +0100
- To: RQTF <public-rqtf@w3.org>
Thanks all! Feedback response now shared with the Silver TF. Dave > On 8 Jun 2017, at 02:13, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote: > > +1 from me too - thanks to Dave for an excellent summary of the comments. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott Hollier [mailto:scott@hollier.info] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 8:42 PM >> To: RQTF <public-rqtf@w3.org> >> Subject: RE: Silver feedback request—core survey questions >> >> +1 from me, great work everyone. >> >> Scott. >> >> >> Dr Scott Hollier >> Digital Access Specialist >> Mobile: +61 (0)430 351 909 >> Web: www.hollier.info >> >> Technology for everyone >> >> Keep up-to-date with digital access news – follow @scotthollier on Twitter or e- >> mail newsletter@hollier.info with ‘subscribe’ in the subject line. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Sloan [mailto:dsloan@paciellogroup.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, 7 June 2017 9:49 PM >> To: RQTF <public-rqtf@w3.org> >> Subject: Re: Silver feedback request—core survey questions >> >> Hi all >> >> As promised during today’s call, this email contains a summary of RQTF’s >> feedback to Silver on the core survey questions. Thank you to everyone who >> contributed feedback. >> >> Please indicate your support for this response from RQTF as soon as possible, by >> 8th June, through a +1 reply to this message. If you have objections to the >> following response, please provide them by reply. Apologies for the tight >> turnaround; I’ll make sure this group has more time for future feedback requests >> from Silver. >> >> # Branching >> >> There is a point in the survey where "branching" may happen, and currently one >> potential branch, but not the other: >> >> Are you familiar with...? >> Yes >> Which components..? vs. Are you familiar >> with...? >> No >> [branch] >> >> Should there be question(s) for the “No” branch? >> >> # Motivation for using WCAG >> >> Is there any value in asking "why" the survey respondent uses WCAG? (Best >> Practices, Legal mandate, other…) >> >> # Internationalisation >> >> Will the surveys be provided in languages other than English? >> >> # Focus beyond Success Criteria >> >> Questions towards the end of the survey all ask about “WCAG 2.0 success >> criteria”, but these are a very narrow aspect of WCAG itself. The answers to >> some of these questions could be very misleading. For example, the WCAG >> success criteria may be of little value in, say, teaching or learning for a given >> individual, but the techniques, Education and Outreach working group resources, >> etc., may be of high value for these purposes. >> >> Recommend the survey addresses, at a minimum, the principles, guidelines, >> success criteria and techniques, distinguishing which of these are the subject of >> specific comments. It should also deal with educational resources. Someone >> might think WCAG itself is fine, but the educational materials available are >> inadequate, for instance, but this wouldn’t be reflected in the survey results. >> There should also be a “not applicable” option for some of the questions. >> >> # Answer options for Employment Status >> >> Recommend having 'casual/consultant’, as a lot of people that work in >> accessibity aren't necessarily full-time or part-time >> >> # Answer options for How do you learn or keep up with accessibility topics? >> >> Recommend having 'formalised training' and 'newsletters/mailing lists' in the list >> of options >> >> # Success Criteria questions >> >> Additional section: Present each of the 12 WCAG 2.0 guidelines based on 'WCAG >> 2.0 At A Glance’, with a question asking how hard it is to meet the requirements >> of each of the 12 guidelines. It'd be good to get a sense of which guidelines are >> seen to be challenging. May also be worth asking a related question as to which >> of the 12 guidelines take the most time to implement to get a sense of the 'quick >> wins' and the ones that people are likely to shy away from implementing. >> >> # Future survey feedback from RQTF >> >> RQTF is willing to provide feedback on stakeholder-specific survey questions, but >> would like more time to review and collate feedback. >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> Dave >> >> -- >> David Sloan >> -- >> UX Research Lead >> The Paciello Group >> https://www.paciellogroup.com >> A VFO™ Company http://www.vfo-group.com/ >> -- >> This message is intended to be confidential and may be legally privileged. It is >> intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please >> delete this message from your system and notify us immediately. >> Any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken by >> an unintended recipient in reliance on this message is prohibited and may be >> unlawful. >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. > > > Thank you for your compliance. > > ________________________________ -- David Sloan -- UX Research Lead The Paciello Group https://www.paciellogroup.com A VFO™ Company http://www.vfo-group.com/ -- This message is intended to be confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message from your system and notify us immediately. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken by an unintended recipient in reliance on this message is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Received on Friday, 9 June 2017 08:36:23 UTC