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

RE: Web Accessibility Evaluation and Testing

From: Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo <coordina@sidar.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 22:57:24 +0200
To: "'Jonathan Avila'" <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01a801cc4268$a2a3fd70$e7ebf850$@sidar.org>
Hi Jonathan:

 

You're right, the user experience is just that user.

 

The recommendation that paragraph spacing is 1.5, is useful for a large
majority of users who normally see. We can not have specific recommendations
for each case and it is clear that all may not apply to everyone, because we
are different and we are in different circumstances.

 

But what do the WCAG is to ensure that the contents can be presented in
different ways depending on user preferences. And the user has the ability
to modify at all the pages he visit, the spacing between paragraphs, among
many other display options.

 

I always say that the user has some responsibility for the accessibility or
inaccessibility of a website.

 

Although it is true that little has been done to give users an understanding
of the settings you have at your fingertips. In SIDAR site, we offer this
type of information (although is currently rather outdated and are working
to update it) and even, years ago we created an application to provide the
user create their own style sheet. In the WAI space there are some
information too.

 

I think part of the work to be done to promote accessibility should be
directed at users, not just designers or developers.

 

All the best,

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 Jonathan Avila
Enviado el: jueves, 14 de julio de 2011 14:15
Para: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Asunto: RE: Web Accessibility Evaluation and Testing

 

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 20:58:13 GMT

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