Re[2]: '"Usable Accessibility'" TF VS. Higher education

Thanks for that Mike. I certainly understand working group members 
hesitancy and skepticism about
this kind of work for a group like WCAG. Some may even outright dismiss 
usability/user experience as merely 'subjective'. But to do so to my 
mind, is to knowingly or not, deny the reality of subjective experience 
- which I don't think is a good logical or philosophical basis, either 
to not do this kind of work, or as an argument to just not try.

For another angle, my own 2 cents is that I don't think modern 
technology standards can afford to (or rather would prefer that they 
didn't) divorce themselves from the user experience. Or put another way, 
to put themselves at such a remove that they somehow abdicate 
responsibility for that experience.

_How_ we do that, at this point, I just don't know - but at the very 
least think a TF of this nature can explore if this line of thinking is 
worthwhile and we may come up with some interesting deltas with other 
standards/guidelines. If nothing else, doing this work would help to put 
user centered design, usability, etc on the map and act as great 
awareness raising propaganda.

I'm also fully aware that we get this more wrong than right - but in 
toto I guess it's worth a shot.

Thanks

Josh

------ Original Message ------
From: "Michael Pluke" <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
To: "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca>; "Joshue O Connor" 
<joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Cc: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>; "Gregg 
Vanderheiden" <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>; "Laura Carlson" 
<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>; "GLWAI Guidelines WG org" 
<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; "Katie Haritos-Shea" <ryladog@gmail.com>; "Shadi 
Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>; "Debra Ruh Global" <debra@ruhglobal.com>; 
"Dick" <wayneedick@gmail.com>; "Neil Milliken" 
<Neil.Milliken@bbc.co.uk>; "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Sent: 08/07/2015 08:55:11
Subject: RE: '"Usable Accessibility'" TF VS. Higher education

>Hi all
>
>
>
>I fully agree with David’s scepticism about the idea that W3C should 
>create a task force on “UX intersecting wit a11y” unless it’s scope is 
>seriously limited (e.g. along the lines of my last paragraph).
>
>
>
>More than a quarter of a century ago I started working in the field of 
>usability standards and am aware of the hundreds of person years of 
>effort that have gone into their development. It is difficult to see 
>how W3C could hope to replicate the enormous amount of expertise that 
>has gone into the development of these standards – and in particular 
>the granddaddy of them all ISO-9241 (which I played a small part in 
>developing in its early days). An old colleague of mine has written a 
>guide to this comprehensive multi-part standard that is still being 
>revised and expanded and an out-of-date version of this guide is 
>available online (and also lists many other relevant standards) [1].
>
>
>
>Given that I suspect that we all recognise and are concerned about the 
>"Accessibility Lipstick on a Usability Pig" issue, maybe W3C should 
>consider how it might be able to give top-level guidance on the 
>importance of continuous usability testing during development and then 
>provide links to important standards, like ISO-9241, that should be 
>consulted during that development.
>
>
>
>Best regards
>
>
>
>Mike
>
>
>
>From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
>Sent: 07 July 2015 17:48
>To: Joshue O Connor
>Cc: Loretta Guarino Reid; Gregg Vanderheiden; Laura Carlson; GLWAI 
>Guidelines WG org; Katie Haritos-Shea; Shadi Abou-Zahra; Debra Ruh 
>Global; Dick; Neil Milliken; Alastair Campbell
>Subject: '"Usable Accessibility'" TF VS. Higher education
>
>
>
>Hi Laura
>
>Regarding the the 2 new proposed new task forces
>
>UX intersecting with a11yHigher education
>I think the the higher education issue is a low hanging fruit. I think 
>an experienced WCAG person who is in the education world could fairly 
>easily identify issues and gaps in WCAG for LMS, Teacher/student 
>bulletin boards, etc... and come back to the committee with a proposed 
>road map to meet the gaps. My guess is that most SCs would apply, but 
>perhaps some additional techniques in an extension.
>
>On the other hand UX is a huge field. I just don't see how we could add 
>that to our load. We have currently
>
>-Mobile
>
>-Cognitive
>
>-Techniques (HTML, WAI ARIA, maintenence of current techs)
>
>-Low vision
>
>How are we going to take UX on? We are about a 14 person committee, all 
>who have full time jobs and do this volunteer. It took us 2 years to 
>write 20 aria techniques.
>
>When I speak with UX experts I have a great respect for their art. They 
>have a respect for mine. There are many things about UX that are beyond 
>my expertise and interest, which is how I can fill the gap between what 
>people with disabilities can do and what others take for granted. I 
>recognize that elegant design means better accessibility in many 
>circumstances. In others it means worse accessibility for some.
>
>I'd rather address UX concerns within the context of the task forces 
>already set out. I'm guessing that there will be many UX proposals in 
>the cognitive TF, in the mobile and Low vision. I think through those 
>lenses we can propose some very good suggestions for UX experts to take 
>into their domain. I expect some of these will be best practices, but 
>many will be testable, and can find their way into the core.
>
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>David MacDonald
>
>
>
>CanAdaptSolutions Inc.
>
>Tel:  613.235.4902
>
>LinkedIn
>
>www.Can-Adapt.com
>
>
>
>   Adapting the web to all users
>
>             Including those with disabilities
>
>
>
>If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>
>
>
>On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Joshue O Connor 
><joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> wrote:
>
>>I also think such distinctions are healthy!
>>
>>Good thread
>>
>>Josh
>>
>>Sent from TypeMail
>>
>>On 6 Jul 2015, at 19:08, Loretta Guarino Reid 
>><lorettaguarino@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden 
>>><gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>one comment
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Your statement regarding accessible but unusable
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I didn’t mean to imply that anything was accessible if it wasn’t 
>>>>also usable.  (I fight that every day)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What I meant was -      it could pass “Minimum Accessibility 
>>>>Requirements (such as WCAG or 508)”  and still not be usable.    
>>>>(mostly because we can only level playing fields — not ensure that 
>>>>they are not under water entirely)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is important to remember that   things that pass   WCAG or 508 or 
>>>>any other guidelines - have just passed some set of “minimum 
>>>>accessibility requirements”  — but they still will not be accessible 
>>>>to some people - no matter what the guidelines are.   So things 
>>>>should never be referred to as accessible as a statement of status - 
>>>>just because the passed some minimum accessibility standard like 
>>>>WCAG of 508.  (Though of course we commonly refer to things as 
>>>>accessible if they meet ADAAG or 508 or WCAG.   Perhaps we need to 
>>>>change our language and say   “ADA compliant”  or  WCAG conformant 
>>>>etc  rather than ever calling anything “accessible” as a flat 
>>>>statement
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Gregg
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>​+1 !!
>>>
>>>Loretta​
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>