Re: Usability Section Rewrite

I also do not like the changes to section 5.2 Finding People to Include. It
is hard to tell unless you compare it to the original at
https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#Building_in_the_user but it is a very
different tone. It was built to emphasize that even beginners in usability
can get some good feed back for free. You now have to get through a lot
before you get there.

I will review the next section soon.

All the best
Lisa


On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:26 AM Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Rachael
>
> This was a lot of work, Some of the changes look  ok, and some I disagree
> with.
> I suggest we brake this up into stages.
>
> The first question is do we want to address this issue of EO? We have
> already voted not to, as we did not agree. However if we bring it up again
> and see if we , as a group have changed our mind.  Part of this is  do we
> want to delay publication for this change. My estimate would be three
> weeks, but possibly one week if we focus on it.
>
> Also the section was called "building in the user" and this seems to have
> gotten lost in the resucture. I suggest we just retitle the section back to
> what it was. then the content on testing stays under its subsection and it
> all makes sense.
>
> The next question would be if we want to remove any general advice into
> testing. DO we want to remove other references    The reason we have it in
> , is so that  small websites can get a basic idea and ask a few people to
> use site before going public. That by itself will make a huge difference.
>
> We would then need a full review of all the changes and give everyone a
> chance to comment, add content etc, as we have done with all sections.
>
> All the best
>
> lisa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:07 AM Rachael Bradley Montgomery <
> rachael@accessiblecommunity.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> We received a comment that complimented the value of the usability
>> section that focused on cognitive and learning and pointed out that it was
>> somewhat lost amid the more generic usability information. This comment
>> also pointed out that the generic information is incomplete (which we had
>> also stated).
>>
>> When I reread the section from that perspective, I personally agreed with
>> it and made an attempt to refocus the section. We have previously discussed
>> leaving the usability section as it was other than minor edits so, if
>> agreed on, this would be a change from previous discussions.
>>
>> There are a few ways to view the changes I am proposing:
>>
>>    - I've listed a summary of the changes below
>>    - I've attached a MSWord document with the inline changes
>>    - You can view both versions at the current Google Doc
>>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/14njvulpz7yqf69IOa1ilIfwxQ8ln05z-tC0iTIpFw0g/edit#heading=h.ppxiiuy6tnyp>
>>
>>
>> Summary of changes
>>
>>    - The biggest change is that I removed section 5.4 Usability Testing
>>    and moved the link to additional resources to the end of the first section
>>    - I moved the heading for section 5.4.1 Differences from Usability
>>    Testing with the General Population up a heading level so it became section
>>    5.4. I think this draws more attention to it
>>    - I combined all statements about how to recruit people into a
>>    single list and changed the introduction from "Finding people to include in
>>    usability testing who have different cognitive and learning disabilities
>>    can be relatively easy." to "There are many ways to find people with
>>    cognitive and learning disabilities. A few include:"
>>    - I also made editorial fixes and reordered several paragraphs and
>>    sentences
>>
>> I believe these are the major changes but if someone sees something else,
>> please respond and call it out.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Rachael
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rachael Montgomery, PhD
>> Director, Accessible Community
>> rachael@accessiblecommunity.org
>>
>> "I will paint this day with laughter;
>> I will frame this night in song."
>>  - Og Mandino
>>
>>