W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Removing PDFs and accessibility

From: <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 19:56:16 -0400 (EDT)
To: Wayne Dick <wed@csulb.edu>
cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.1204041951220.28331@cygnus.smart.net>

true they try it out on the latest version of windows with the latest 
version of Jaws and call it accessible.  mostly because they wrote it for 
the "Test" so it would "pass" and then can foist it off on the 
unsuspecting buyer.  or they "Hack" their existing software to pretend it 
can be accessible.

most of JQ Users do not have the latest and greatest version of all of the 
stuff especially if it is pricy.  not to mention the apples, older 
versions and all the other stuff out there.

it is a shame that the various companies and OS writers cannot agree on a 
single way to mark up stuff for the internet and elsewhere so the assitive 
tech folks don't have to constantly reinvent the wheel as soon as a new 
version of XYZ is released.

Bob


On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Wayne Dick wrote:

> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:07:55 -0700
> From: Wayne Dick <wed@csulb.edu>
> To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> Cc: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>,
>     "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Removing PDFs and accessibility
> Resent-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 23:08:25 +0000
> Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> 
> Andrew really has a  point.
>
> Agents who claim to improve accessibility, really should have formal
> studies refereed by qualified statisticians before they claim that
> their products provide an effective treatment for reading
> disabilities.  People with disabilities are constantly having
> ineffective accessibility enhancements and assistive technologies
> foisted on them with little rigorous testing.  I could fill my garage
> with assistive products that didn't work.  The key point is that the
> burden of proof should be on the party who claims their product is
> accessible or improves access, not the person with a disability.
> Victoria should test the effectiveness of their change on well known
> disability populations using independent investigators.  Everybody who
> proposes a product that impacts a significant population should do
> that, and do it with serious rigor.  The methodology for testing the
> effectiveness of a treatment is well established, but it is not
> practiced with IT products that claim to help people with
> disabilities.
>
> Today, the burden of proof is placed person with the disability who
> has little chance to execute a rigorous experiment.  Sadly,
> corporations who do have the resources are not required to fund
> research before they launch products which make claims of
> accessibility.
>
> We really do need careful user centered studies that rank the
> effectiveness of different interventions regarding their ability to
> support critical life functions.  For example: given people with
> disability group X, how do they perform activity Y using product Z.
> As Z ranges over all similar products, how does a particular Z' rank
> compared to the field on parameters like: user report on ease of use,
> effectiveness in completing tasks, amount of overhead needed to
> perform the same task and of course the ability to perform the task at
> a level necessary for competitive performance in the workplace.
>
> As far as I have seen, and I have looked, there is very little IT
> accessibility research on any product that applies formal analysis to
> well defined user goals.  I have never seen anything approaching the
> quality of a clinical trial, even though the products under review
> claim to provide interventions for physical conditions.  There have
> been lots of studies, but very few actually measure the treatment
> value of accessibility interventions at a level that is sufficient to
> claim effectiveness.
>
> Wayne Dick
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:58:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:58:56 GMT