Re: Conformance and method 'levels'

Alastair wrote:

> Something we should encourage is to slipstream other activity.

Good point and a huge +1. How we *score* that however still remains a
challenge, but I agree that is a significant factor going forward.

JF

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:36 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> *>* however I think we can set it up in such a way that the "hard
> testing", which I agree takes more time and money, will be valuable enough
> "score-wise" that it will be worth the effort.
>
>
>
> Something we should encourage is to slipstream other activity.
>
>
>
> For example, lots of our clients at the larger end of the scale already
> have mature user-experience programmes. I.e. They already do regular
> usability testing.
>
>
>
> If a company is already doing good work in making their site usable
> (following a UCD or similar methodology) there is no point running
> duplicate activity.
>
>
>
> Therefore, if a company can tweak their current user-research programme to
> incorporate accessibility, we should encourage that. E.g. running at least
> 1/5 research sessions with someone with a disability, or including
> particular scenarios in their testing.
>
>
>
> We shouldn‘t assume it will be a separate activity. But, we should make
> clear what that activity needs to include in order to score silver-points.
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>


-- 
*​John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com