Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)

I agree with you Lisa. The old WCAG did not study cognitive disabilities
enough to determine how to test ways to overcome barriers. WCAG 2.0 focused
on a narrow and easily defined set of disabilities with highly testable
barriers. It was not inclusive.

I too find the current AG process frustrating. The group never considered
Cognitive and LV disabilities with the necessary care in the past to solve
the real problems. This is witnessed by their inadequate framework for
testing barriers for these disabilities.  They are imposing differential
standards to these disability groups because they are not looking for new
testing methods for a new type of problem. If the old testing techniques do
not work, then a proven barrier to access are left in place.

Grappling with and solving the real needs of people with LV and Cognitive
disabilities is a test for the legitimacy of the AG working group as a
leader in accessibility guidelines. If guidelines and test procedures
cannot be expanded to accurately identify insurmountable barriers for
people in these disability groups, then the disability community will have
to look to other leadership for developing accessibility standards.

Wayne


Yes I can see how small sample user testing techniques need to be built by
organizations the claim to test for accessibility.





On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:20 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:

> Hi folks
> At the risk of shooting my self in the foot but ... to enable us to move on
>
> Does anyone else see this as an issue. If I am the only one with a problem
> with it, then I will conseed to consensus, rewrite the exceptions that
> depend on it,  and we can move on.
>
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:24:07 +0200 *Joshue O
> Connor<josh@interaccess.ie <josh@interaccess.ie>>* wrote ----
>
> Hi John,
>
> Fair point or not, I don't at this point feel the need to go thru another
> CFC that allows or does not allow user testing in situation x, or to limit
> it under exception y. I'm not fully clear on the implication of doing such
> a thing, nor am I clear on the reason why we might. You seem to be, which
> is cool :-)
>
> My main concern at the moment, is that we cannot make user testing a
> requirement in 2.1. End of story. However, I don't want to wrangle our spec
> to stop people from testing or imply that that cannot do it under situation
> A or B. People can test all they like, in any situation, if they wish to as
> far as I'm concerned.
>
> As I stated - at the moment, I feel I just don't fully grok some of the
> points being made here but even with that aside - the original CFC was
> clear IMO.
>
> Thanks
>
> Josh
>
>
>
> John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
> 15 February 2017 at 15:58
> Chairs,
>
> Lisa has a fair point.
>
> Can I request that a second CfC go out that explicitly states that "we
> should not allow user testing in exceptions" - for the same reasons that
> user-testing for conformance was rejected?
>
> This way we can be sure that the consensus has been recorded properly and
> accurately, and everyone understands what they are registering their
> position on.
>
> Thanks.
>
> JF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> <john.foliot@deque.com>john.foliot@deque.com
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>
>
> --
> Joshue O Connor
> Director | InterAccess.ie
>
>
>
>