W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > September 2018

Re: Minor updates to usable doc

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 10:36:24 +0000
To: "lisa.seeman@zoho.com" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
CC: COGA TF <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8E88B207-AB54-4580-AF33-A48F34DB11B8@nomensa.com>
Hi Lisa,

Ok, the aim for that diagram was to say that focusing on usability (compared to automated testing) is needed.

How about it finishes with:
“It is vital for people with cognitive disabilities that teams do not rely on automated testing for accessibility, but incorporate design requirements (link), and if possible test with people who have cognitive disabilities.”



From: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Reply-To: "lisa.seeman@zoho.com" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Date: Friday, 28 September 2018 at 06:23
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: COGA TF <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Minor updates to usable doc

I agree with the five to ten comment

I do not agree with " It is vital for people with cognitive disabilities that user-centered design and usability testing are part of the process.” It may well be true but  we do not have data or experience to support it when comparing building content with our design requirements. I have seen developers change an application (that could not be used by people with dementia)  so it became usable by people with dementia by following guidelines I wrote for them. We then performed usability tests and it became slightly better. but following the design requirement, once we get them fully understandable, will go a long way.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>

---- On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 17:48:29 +0300 Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote ----

Hi everyone,

When the make usable document went to the full AG group for comments, a couple came back. Minor things, but to make sure everyone knows here are the comments with my suggested changes.


  1.  “Whatever it is that the Venn diagram is meant to be illustrating needs more exposition. I am not sure I got the message the author is trying to convey. Something about automated testing being outside of Usability?”

So for this diagram: https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/coga/lisas-cahnges-such-as-easyread-abstract/content-usable/index.html#testing_groups_feedback

I suggest adding underneath:

“Usability is a key factor for everyone, if something is difficult to use it is cannot be accessible. Automated testing for accessibility tends to focus on more technical areas of accessibility, and cannot assess how easy something is to use. It is vital for people with cognitive disabilities that user-centred design and usability testing are part of the process.”

  1.  “The “five to ten” portion of the statement that “finding five to ten people with different learning and cognitive disabilities can be relatively easy” should be deleted as the number is not warranted without context of the scale of the larger usability testing effort.”

I tend to agree, some organisations / people don’t do any testing, so putting numbers on it immediately puts it out of reach for some people. I think it works with:

“Finding people to include in usability testing who have different learning and cognitive disabilities can be relatively easy, such as friends, colleagues, relatives or neighbors who:”

  1.  Typo in the abstract: “About people with with learning and cognitive disabilities”

An easy change.

Is there any objection to incorporating those?

Kind regards,



tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333 / 07970 879 653
follow us: @we_are_nomensa or me: @alastc
Nomensa Ltd. King William House, 13 Queen Square, Bristol BS1 4NT

Company number: 4214477 | UK VAT registration: GB 771727411

Received on Friday, 28 September 2018 10:36:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:01 UTC