W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2001

AW: Nielson Norman Group Accessibility was: Re: 170147_1.html (fwd)

From: Jan Eric Hellbusch <hellbusch@web.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 21:41:25 +0200
To: "David Poehlman" <poehlman1@home.com>, "Jan Hellbusch" <hellbusch@web.de>, "AccessSystems" <accessys@smart.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NFBBJKECKLPNANIKABHJKEPMCFAA.hellbusch@web.de>
David, thanks! I had misinterpreted the implications. Of course, the stats
refer to the number of tasks accomplished and not the necessitated time to
fulfill a task. Recently, I was reading about the reading efficiency of
partially sighted in comparison to Braille readers, wherby Braille readers
were substantially faster. Somehor that was still sticking in my mind.

Jan


+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
http://www.malerecke.de

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: David Poehlman [mailto:poehlman1@home.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Oktober 2001 15:57
An: Jan Hellbusch; AccessSystems; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Betreff: Re: Nielson Norman Group Accessibility was: Re: 170147_1.html
(fwd)


not unless the others are typos too. <grin>

I actually find the screen reader one acceedingly low considering I am a
screen reader user myself and get about 80 percent.  I'd have to look at
their study but I am not inclined to pay that high a price for it.

One thing that is needed here though is to look at the relative
relationships.  a screen reader user needs to become familiar with
things in ways that a controll does not so that should have been taken
into account.  Now, if there are accessibility issues that is a
different thing.  Also, I don't think 104 constitutes a good sample
unless they are well distributed across technical capability and other
lines.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Hellbusch" <hellbusch@web.de>
To: "AccessSystems" <accessys@smart.net>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:18 AM
Subject: Nielson Norman Group Accessibility was: Re: 170147_1.html (fwd)


In the NNG report the control group is quoted to have needed
substantially longer than screen reader/screen magnifier users::

>      * Task completion rate: Screen reader users were able to complete
>        the tasks given to them 12.5% of the time; screen magnifier
users
>        21.4% of the time; control group 78% of the time.

While first reading, I read 7.8% for the control group, which would
correspond to my experiences. Could the 78% be a typo or scanning error?

Jan

_______________________________________________________________________
1.000.000 DM gewinnen - kostenlos tippen - http://millionenklick.web.de
IhrName@web.de, 8MB Speicher, Verschluesselung - http://freemail.web.de
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2001 15:38:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:58 GMT