W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-eo-editors@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Comments to "Involving Users in Web Projects for Better, Easier Accessibility" and "Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility"

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:20:34 -0600
Message-ID: <4B421552.1080103@w3.org>
To: Henrike Gappa <henrike.gappa@fit.fraunhofer.de>
CC: wai-eo-editors@w3.org
Dear Henrike Gappa,

Thank you very much for your comments. We will address these with the next revision of the documents.

Regards,
~Shawn

-----
Shawn Lawton Henry
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
e-mail: shawn@w3.org
phone: +1.617.395.7664
about: http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/



Henrike Gappa wrote:
> Dear editors,
> 
> Please find in the following some comments in regard to the posted notes:
> 
> - Involving Users in Web Projects for Better, Easier Accessibility 
> (http://www.w3.org/WAI/users/involving)
> - Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility 
> (http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/users)
> 
> 
> To "Involving Users in Web Projects for Better, Easier Accessibility"
> 
> We support wholeheartedly encouraging web site developers and owners to
> conduct user testing for better accessibility. However, we feel that the
> limitations of the proposed test methodology needs to be addressed much
> more clearly. For instance, to stress that the test results obtained
> with only a small group of disabled users can only be understood as
> informative, also in regard to the generalization of test results to
> users with the same characteristics, e.g., blind or screen-reader users.
> There is a lot of diversity among people with the same disability even
> when utilizing the same assistive technology. Furthermore, to our
> knowledge, it is a precondition to have a deep insight into
> accessibility guidelines and, at least to some extent, experience with
> assistive technologies to really employ user testing for better
> accessibility and to create accessible web applications. In other cases,
> its benefit is more of motivational and educational nature which is of
> great value and thus highly recommendable. The described issues are
> somehow mentioned in the document, but should be pointed out much more
> explicitly. For instance when contrasted with the section "More
> Efficient Development", the limitations of the proposed methodology will
> not be identified most likely by the uninformed user.
> 
> Besides this, we are afraid it might not become clear to the reader
> which user groups are addressed by the note. Most of the time the note
> names only people with disabilities, sometimes it is people with
> disabilities and older people and sometimes it is only "users", for
> instance, in the section "More Efficient Development".
> 
> Suggesting as test methodology to "ask a lot of questions" to gather
> user data is vague. We propose to be more concrete. Since tests sessions
> have a time limit, it is advisable for many test purposes to develop at
> least a questionnaire guide to ensure that all relevant issues are
> touched and that test results are comparable in case there are several
> test participants.
> 
> 
> 
> To "Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility"
> 
> Our first comment in regard to this note is -- as it was for "Involving
> Users in Web Projects for Better, Easier Accessibility" -- that the
> limitations of the described evaluation methodology need to be pointed
> out more clearly. We are in favour of user testing, and agree that user
> testing may reveal accessibility issues that would not have been
> detected via standard conformance testing. However, it is also important
> to note that many accessibility errors will definitely not be detected
> by user testing alone. Therefore, different from what is stated in the
> introduction of this article, to our knowledge, conformance checks to
> all relevant accessibility guidelines are not only "important" but need
> to be understood as the basic of all accessibility evaluations. We would
> also suggest conducting a full review instead of a preliminary one and
> fix all errors, before bringing in users to avoid operation errors of
> the assistive technologies due to accessibility errors in the code.
> 
> In the section on "Range of User Evaluation" informal vs. formal
> usability evaluation are compared. We think it would be important to
> also explain here differences of the outcome in terms of significance
> and validity. Also gains and limitations of involving only a few people
> with disabilities as stated in the section "Basics", should also be
> pointed out clearly to the reader, so the reader is able to conclude
> correctly what will be an appropriate test scenario for her purposes. In
> the section "Drawing Conclusions and Reporting", the editors state the
> need to be careful when "... drawing conclusions from limited evaluations
> ....". However we feel that this is not explicit enough, because valid
> conclusions cannot really be drawn from such user testing, and this
> should be clear to the reader.  The problem is not so much the lack of
> statistical significance as mentioned, but the limited validity and
> generalisability of test results.
> 
> In the section on "Analyzing Accessibility Issues", it is proposed to
> assign occurring accessibility issues to the origin, e.g., "the
> developer did not markup/code the web page properly" or "the user's AT
> isn't handling the markup properly". From our experience with
> accessibility audits, this can only be achieved by accessibility
> experts, which means for a reliable judgement, that the evaluator needs
> to have deep knowledge about HTML, accessible web coding and standard
> behaviour of AT. Otherwise, such mappings are in danger of being
> error-prone.
> 
> Finally, the section "More Information and Guidance" provides
> information on user testing specifically for usability professionals.
> Here, we do not really understand what is meant by "usability testing
> for accessibility". Both, user testing for usability as well as
> accessibility issues are based on methods and techniques derived from
> Psychology and related sciences, e.g., work psychology or software
> ergonomics. Thus to our understanding there are usability tests and
> accessibility tests which follow different goals. They might overlap in
> regard to certain sub-goals and methodologies employed, yet, the goal is
> quite different and both disciplines should not be intermixed to our
> understanding.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Henrike Gappa, Gabriele Nordbrock and Carlos Velasco
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 4 January 2010 16:20:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 January 2010 00:13:20 GMT