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

RE: approval

From: Roger Hudson <rhudson@usability.com.au>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:44:42 +1100
To: "'Karl Groves'" <karl@karlgroves.com>, "'David Woolley'" <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Cc: "'WAI Group'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "'Meliha Yenilmez'" <melihayenilmez@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <006c01ccf03a$630875d0$29196170$@com.au>
I agree with Karl, great if we could do all this but it doesn't happen in
practice very often.

I looked at the pros and cons of conformance reviews and user testing with
people with disabilities in the blog post 'Measuring Accessibility' at the
end of last year -
http://www.dingoaccess.com/accessibility/measuring-accessibility/

Roger 

-----Original Message-----
From: karlgroves@gmail.com [mailto:karlgroves@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Karl
Groves
Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2012 10:10 AM
To: David Woolley
Cc: WAI Group; Meliha Yenilmez
Subject: Re: approval

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:02 PM, David Woolley
<forums@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote:

> To find out if it is actually accessible, you need to find people with
lots
> of different disabilities and perform a usability survey on them, allowing
> them to use their own browsers and any assistive technology that they use.

Do you do this?  Really?

With all due respect, this is exactly the type of attitude that
perpetuates the impression that accessibility is nebulous, expensive,
and difficult.

It would be wonderful to be able to test with real users, but such a
thing is often not feasible due to time, budget, or resource
constraints.  Considering the other types of testing available that
can be used to gather accessibility data, doing usability testing
should be reserved for cases where other test approaches (that are
often quicker, cheaper, and easier anyway) have already been utilized.

Karl
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 01:46:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 February 2012 01:46:34 GMT