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

(unknown charset) RE: Web Accessibility Evaluation and Testing

From: (unknown charset) Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:03:25 -0400 (EDT)
To: (unknown charset) Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
cc: (unknown charset) w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.64.1107141146490.26673@server1.shellworld.net>
Hi all,
Hands down the  < doing this makes things more enjoyable for yourusers and 
more profitable for you> approach is the most win win, pr wise and 
otherwise,.  But perhaps  one thing more?

Like many here I am speaking from personal experience, rather allot of it 
actually.  I seem to create endless times when I am having to explain yet 
again to a clueless company or site developer that x. y. z..is not 
accessible,  with the person usually still stuck on <wait blind people use 
computers?>
Funny I would see this thread as I was just thinking of this today.
Since many small companies and some large ones simply grab a web design 
package off the shelf or Internet and create their site, would it not be 
much simpler if access was the default?
Indeed the preferences are going to vary, and they should.  There is no 
such thing as a "disabled person" with exact uniform experiences the same 
from individual to individual.  There are preferences tastes and desires 
as much in this market as anywhere else.  The suggestion that making 
something work  for one product, no matter how dreadful that product, Jaws 
for example, just closes more doors.
I have always represented the super highway approach. you want your site to 
allow any person to visit, rather in a Mercedes, or on a tractor.  That 
way people do not have to wrap their brain around what is outside 
their personal experience.  Goodness knows the tools are growing all the 
time. So why not build the packages with universal access in place, 
reestablish the focus on the three workable browsers lynx, e-links, 
and links, and make it all easy for everyone
Either that or automatically build in a site testing structure before a 
site can be available for a business or community institution.
Something that makes things more like road construction again.
Just my take,
Karen

On Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Jonathan Avila wrote:

> 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 16:04:03 GMT

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