comments on Cognitive Accessibility Roadmap and Gap Analysis

Dear Mrs E. A. Draffan,

Please, as a member of AAATE, I’m sending below and attached our comments on
Cognitive Accessibility Roadmap and Gap Analysis.

 

In the section
<https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-gap-analysis/#appendix-making-content-usable-for
-people-with-cognitive-and-learning-disabilities> how to make content usable
for people with learning and cognitive disabilities it is asked by the
Editor’s note of “section A.5.1 Differences from usability testing with the
general population” if the text “Some brief guidance on usability testing:”
is useful or beyond the scope.

A quick answer is that I believe that the text is absolutely relevant
because the references to the usability guidelines you proposed are not
covering the same points. 

However, the current text requires an amendment. In the text, the following
statement is reported:

“As a short overview, usability could be measured based on efficacy,
efficiency and satisfaction. This can be done by measuring or tracking:

*	successes and noting any errors to measure efficacy,
*	time taken per task to measure efficiency, note that the relative
time between tasks is often more useful than absolute numbers. and
*	user’s mood and comments to measure satisfaction.”

I believe that this text needs to be amended like that:

“As a short overview, usability could be measured based on efficacy,
efficiency and satisfaction in a specific context of use. This can be done
by measuring or tracking:

*	successes and noting any errors to measure efficacy,
*	time taken per task to measure efficiency, note that the relative
time between tasks is often more useful than absolute numbers. and
*	Satisfaction in the usage by standardized questionnaires (see for
instance:
<https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/system-usability-scale.h
tml>
https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/system-usability-scale..ht
ml), and notes relative to user’s comments about the quality of the
interaction.”

I strongly believe that this modification is essential to convey that: (i)
satisfaction is a key part of usability evaluation, and (ii) satisfaction is
not something related to the mood! Moreover, satisfaction is not a factor
that you may measure with unreliable and qualitative/homemade surveys, but
it is a well-defined concept that must be measured with well-defined,
established and reliable measures.

I advise you to add this amendment and to keep this text because the
usability guideline’s links you referenced are not covering these important
aspects.

 

Best regards,

Stefano Federici

Simone Borsci*

*Department of Cognitive Psychology and Ergonomics, Faculty of Behavioral
Management and Social sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands

 

_____________________________

Stefano Federici

Professor of General Psychology

Department of Philosophy, Social & Human Sciences and Education

University of Perugia

Piazza G. Ermini 1, 06123 Perugia, Italy

Tel. +39 075 5854921 - Fax +39 075 9660141

cell. +39 347 3769497

E-mail:  <mailto:stefano.federici@unipg.it> stefano.federici@unipg.it //
<mailto:stefano.federici@gmail.com> stefano.federici@gmail.com

 <http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5681-0633> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5681-0633

Skype: stefano_federici

 

P Rispetta l'ambiente: se non ti è necessario, non stampare questa mail.

Think about the environment before printing