W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2011

RE: Web Accessibility Evaluation and Testing

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 08:15:16 -0400
Message-ID: <2c48b7b8c3af82e7d159228316f7efb8@mail.gmail.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Emmanuelle wrote:

Ø  very simply, improve the user experience, whether or not the required
level.



This is not always so simple.  What improves the user experience for one
person might hinder the user experience for another.  For example, a number
of the WCAG Level AAA items that are designed to help people with cognitive
disabilities may negatively impact users with visual impairments (unless
user selectable options were provided for each requirement).  For example,
the requirement to space out text with 1.5 line spacing would significantly
slow my reading down and cause less content to fit on my screen at a given
time (I use low resolution).



Additionally, I’ve worked with users of the years and I find that many
things that one user recommends are personal preference and another users
would recommend something different and contrary.



Jonathan





*From:* w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] *On
Behalf Of *Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2011 6:44 PM
*To:* w3c-wai-ig@w3.org; 'Phill Jenkins'
*Subject:* RE: Web Accessibility Evaluation and Testing



I agree with Phil. But also, I wonder if those bugs usability should not be
that no guidelines have been implemented at Triple A. Because at that level
are most of the guidelines represent a clear improvement in usability.



I think unfortunately, and that I agree with Ian, developers are only
concerned with reviewing compliance with the level that required the
government of his country or his boss. Instead of dealing in implementing the
guidelines, very simply, improve the user experience, whether or not the
required level.



Best regards,

Emmanuelle



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo*

Directora de la Fundación Sidar

Coordinadora del Seminario SIDAR

www.sidar.org

email: coordina@sidar.org / emmanuelle@sidar.org





*De:* w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] *En
nombre de *Phill Jenkins
*Enviado el:* miércoles, 13 de julio de 2011 23:39
*Para:* w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
*Asunto:* RE: Web Accessibility Evaluation and Testing



Ian wrote: "But conformance alone is not enough to guarantee usability."

Generally I agree with this statement, but it would be useful if Ian and
others would provide some examples of a page or set of pages that illustrate
the usability issues of where there is agreement on conformance to the WCAG
2.0 level A and/or even double AA success criteria, but still not considered
usable.  Some examples could help us all understand where best to address
the usability issues.

My experience has been that many of the quote usability unquote issues have
to do with the following categories where the page is fully compliant to
WCAG 2.0 AA:
a. but equally unusable to everyone (e.g. design or task flow issues),
b. but differing usability experiences depending on the browser (user agent)
and/or assistive technology the person is using,
c. but differing usability experiences depending on the person's
configuration and/or habits of how they use their browser and assistive
technology.

In other words category A is where when there is the same site - but
everyone is dissatisfied, confused or lost.
B is where the there is the same site and same person (similar end user
level), but the issues are really the cause of using a different browser
and/or level of AT.
And C is where the site is the same, browsers and AT are the same, but the
issues are really the cause of the persons having different levels of
training or knowledge of how to best use that browser and/or AT.

Other classic "usability" issues or categories of issues are often grouped
as
        ease of learning - first time users vs repeat users - and everything
else is equal.
        translations or availability in my language choice (e.g., Canadian
French vs Creole French)

An example of an equally unusable site is my automobile toll tag management
web site that complicates the management of account numbers, automobile
license numbers, tag transponder numbers - all of those with the actual toll
booth transaction amounts and dates and financial accounts (credit card
and/or bank account numbers).  The flexibility of having more than one
automobile in an account and more than one payment method has complicated
the heck out of managing the stuff.

An example of B is where the same user is using the same web site, but has a
different user experience when using a different browsers and/or a
 different versions of an assistive technology (e.g. different level of
JAWS, different level of ZoomText, etc.).

An example of C is where the same site is used with the same browser and
same version of assistive technology, but the one users is unfamiliar with
some of the newer browsing techniques that another user may be familiar with
such as using assistive technology to navigate by heading vs navigating by
landmark or navigating a list of links on the page.

Again, some example could help us all understand if the best place to
address the issue is with WCAG itself, the web site design, the tools being
used, the users familiarity with the tools, or something else.

I also think that any evaluation and testing methodology needs to consider
if it is
        - a new site design verses simply updating content in an existing
site design
        - a web site verses a web application
        - and design evaluations verses conformance testing verses
compatibility testing with versions of browsers and AT

Regards,
Phill Jenkins,
IBM Research - Human Ability & Accessibility Center
Received on Thursday, 14 July 2011 12:15:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:37 GMT