Re: Minor updates to usable doc

Howdy Y'all,

I'm late to this party (and still jet lagged).  But I wanted to support
these changes.

+1 to the changes...with a slight suggested modification on the sentence
Alastair & Lisa have been massaging.

   - Latest version:  “It is vital for people with cognitive disabilities
   that teams do not rely on automated testing for accessibility, but
   incorporate design requirements (link), and if possible test with people
   who have cognitive disabilities.”
   - Goodwitch suggested edits: “It is vital for people with cognitive
   disabilities that teams do not rely on automated testing alone for
   accessibility, but incorporate design requirements (link), and if possible
   test with people who have cognitive disabilities.”

I don't want to throw automated testing out the window.  It is like a spell
checker.  You should use it.  But it does not mean that what you wrote is
well written :)

G
*glenda sims* <glenda.sims@deque.com>, cpacc
<http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certification>   | team a11y lead
| 512.963.3773

        deque systems <http://www.deque.com>  accessibility for good


On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:37 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi Lisa,
>
>
>
> Ok, the aim for that diagram was to say that focusing on usability
> (compared to automated testing) is needed.
>
>
>
> How about it finishes with:
>
> “It is vital for people with cognitive disabilities that teams do not rely
> on automated testing for accessibility, but incorporate design requirements
> (link), and if possible test with people who have cognitive disabilities.”
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *"lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
> *Reply-To: *"lisa.seeman@zoho.com" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
> *Date: *Friday, 28 September 2018 at 06:23
> *To: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Cc: *COGA TF <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Minor updates to usable doc
>
>
>
> I agree with the five to ten comment
>
>
>
> I do not agree with " It is vital for people with cognitive disabilities
> that user-centered design and usability testing are part of the process.”
> It may well be true but  we do not have data or experience to support it
> when comparing building content with our design requirements. I have seen
> developers change an application (that could not be used by people with
> dementia)  so it became usable by people with dementia by following
> guidelines I wrote for them. We then performed usability tests and it
> became slightly better. but following the design requirement, once we get
> them fully understandable, will go a long way.
>
>
>
> All the best
>
>
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
>
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 17:48:29 +0300 *Alastair Campbell
> <acampbell@nomensa.com <acampbell@nomensa.com>>* wrote ----
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> When the make usable document went to the full AG group for comments, a
> couple came back. Minor things, but to make sure everyone knows here are
> the comments with my suggested changes.
>
>
>
> Comments:
>
>    1. “Whatever it is that the Venn diagram is meant to be illustrating
>    needs more exposition. I am not sure I got the message the author is trying
>    to convey. Something about automated testing being outside of Usability?”
>
>
>
> So for this diagram:
> https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/coga/lisas-cahnges-such-as-easyread-abstract/content-usable/index.html#testing_groups_feedback
>
>
>
> I suggest adding underneath:
>
>
>
> “Usability is a key factor for everyone, if something is difficult to use
> it is cannot be accessible. Automated testing for accessibility tends to
> focus on more technical areas of accessibility, and cannot assess how easy
> something is to use. It is vital for people with cognitive disabilities
> that user-centred design and usability testing are part of the process.”
>
>
>
>    1. “The “five to ten” portion of the statement that “finding five to
>    ten people with different learning and cognitive disabilities can be
>    relatively easy” should be deleted as the number is not warranted without
>    context of the scale of the larger usability testing effort.”
>
>
>
> I tend to agree, some organisations / people don’t do any testing, so
> putting numbers on it immediately puts it out of reach for some people. I
> think it works with:
>
>
>
> “Finding people to include in usability testing who have different
> learning and cognitive disabilities can be relatively easy, such as
> friends, colleagues, relatives or neighbors who:”
>
>
>
>    1. Typo in the abstract: “About people with *with* learning and
>    cognitive disabilities”
>
>
>
> An easy change.
>
>
>
> Is there any objection to incorporating those?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> www.nomensa.com
> tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333 / 07970 879 653
> follow us: @we_are_nomensa or me: @alastc
> Nomensa Ltd. King William House, 13 Queen Square, Bristol BS1 4NT
>
>
>
> Company number: 4214477 | UK VAT registration: GB 771727411
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>