- From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 15:37:12 -0500
- To: public-silver@w3.org
- Message-ID: <cebcb343-6595-ec43-f867-4491db18d369@spellmanconsulting.com>
David, > Many of our audits include user testing with PWD and I depend on them. However, here are some of the fears I have in making user > testing with people with disabilities a requirement in WCAG.NEXT which might be referenced in law. I seriously doubt that we would make user testing a "requirement", because of all the reasons you said. We want to reward organizations that do more by giving them a higher score, not require them to do testing with people with disabilities. The question we are discussing is: when an automated or manual test from an auditor says that something fails, and testing with people with disabilities say that it is accessible, would the result from testing with people with disabilities be sufficient to say that it passes? And vice versa, if the traditional WCAG tests say that it passes, but people with disabilities say that it is inaccessible, can it claim Silver conformance? > Is there an example of this that someone can provide? I know the opposite can be true where a site can comply with WCAG and still > be super hard to use ... but it usually happens when some complicated legacy application gets an order to conform to WCAG, so a > layer of ARIA etc. is spread over it like lipstick on a pig. I wouldn't say that that is WCAG's fault. I've asked some people with examples of WCAG reducing accessibility to speak for themselves. I did not feel comfortable talking about them specifically in a public forum. I will say that they were NOT legacy systems with a sprinkling of ARIA. These were new, sophisticated web applications from top-notch accessibility teams that did a lot of user testing on accessibility features. At least one of them had to pull a feature that benefited people with disabilities because the organization could not make it backward-compatible to WCAG. During the Silver research phase, we heard complaints from innovative organizations about the challenges of making accessible web applications meet WCAG requirements -- sometimes because of the WCAG definitions of "web", sometimes because of the WCAG orientation toward web "pages" in a web "application" environment, and sometimes because the WCAG requirements apply to old technology (static web) and it is increasingly difficult to apply them to new technology (like dynamic mobile web). None of these examples are "WCAG's fault". I am certainly not trying to fault WCAG (if it comes across that way, I apologize). I think we have a responsibility with Silver to make sure we are doing our best to learn from WCAG 2.x and make Silver a giant leap forward -- the same way that WCAG 2 was a giant leap forward from WCAG 1.0. On 11/9/2018 2:05 PM, David MacDonald wrote: > > We heard the complaint from several large innovative companies that > they had to remove features that improved accessibility from their > applications because they didn't pass WCAG. > > Is there an example of this that someone can provide? I know the > opposite can be true where a site can comply with WCAG and still be > super hard to use ... but it usually happens when some complicated > legacyapplication gets an order to conform to WCAG, so a layer of ARIA > etc. is spread over it like lipstick on a pig.I wouldn't say that that > is WCAG's fault. > > Many of our audits include user testing with PWD and I depend on > them. However, here are some of the fears I have in making user > testing with people with disabilities a requirement in WCAG.NEXT which > might be referenced in law. > > 1) What is a user with a disability? The United Nations’ Convention > CRPD recognizes that “disability is an evolving concept ... ” It is > quite broad and many companies could claim their users have a > disability. Is someone going to be able to say "no those users aren't > qualified as people with disabilities". Are we going to define what > distinguishes a user with a disability from one who doesn't have a > disability? > 2) How does a 3rd party verify user testing with disabilities was done? > 3) How is the quality measured? Some user testing is amazing and > makes all the difference, but legislated user testing sounds like it > may not result in very good quality. > 4) What happens with diverse responses from users? I've had one > expert screen reader user say they loved a particular function and the > other thought is was very difficult to use. > 5) A site has to be pretty mature to have user testing, particularly > if the user needs assistive technology, which means its at the end of > the development process, when the "cement is hard". > 6) When is it enough user testing. How many pages? How much time? > > Cheers, > David MacDonald > > *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.* > > Tel: 613-806-9005 > > LinkedIn > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> > > twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd> > > GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> > > www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> > > / Adapting the web to *all* users/ > > /Including those with disabilities/ > > If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy > policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> > > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 12:52 PM Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk > <mailto:tink@tink.uk>> wrote: > > On 09/11/2018 17:35, Jennison Asuncion wrote: > > "We heard the complaint from several large innovative companies > that they had to remove features that improved accessibility from > their applications because they didn't pass WCAG. That's a problem." > > +1 > > > > > I've often heard the phrase something like: "it complies, but is > it usable?" > > +1 > > > > > I think a key to Silver is that there is a level of flexibility > built-in to avoid both of these situations. > > +1 > > We've all seen things built to conform to WCAG, but which are > effectively unusable in the wild. > > We all advocate for users to be included throughout the production > lifecycle, and for the usability of a thing to be considered a > defining > metric for success. > > We know that trying to document the requirements for each user group > (and every variation within each group), simply isn't possible - at > least, not to the extent that it can be distilled into a usable > set of > criteria/guidelines. > > Ultimately, we know that someone's ability to use a thing is the real > acid test. > > So making usability a success metric for Silver not only seems > like the > logical thing to do, it also feels like the responsible thing to do. > > Léonie. > > > > > > > Just my $0.02. > > Jennison > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: Jeanne Spellman [jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com > <mailto:jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>] > > Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 8:58 AM > > To: public-silver@w3.org <mailto:public-silver@w3.org> > > Subject: Re: Measurability in Silver > > > > Charles raises a very important issue: Can the qualitative > result be accepted as a measurable “pass”?. I am interested in > what you think about it. The example is link with no underline > that fails 1.4.1 Color Alone (a common design pattern). Should > Silver accept the results of a test with users that found that a > large percentage were able to identify that it was a link, even > though it was only defined by the difference in color? Should that > be a pass? > > > > Should tests with users be able to change the pass/fail of the > guidance? I think that's an important question that I don't know > the answer to yet. It gives an opportunity to for companies with > innovative responses to accessibility to prove that their approach > is more accessible, even if it is a technical WCAG failure. We > heard the complaint from several large innovative companies that > they had to remove features that improved accessibility from > their applications because they didn't pass WCAG. That's a > problem. Testing with users with disabilities is a potential > solution. I saw a presentation at A11yBOS where the presenter > showed some visual designs that passed WCAG that were > inaccessible. Testing with users with disabilities could > encourage companies to move away from technical conformance to > WCAG that is still inaccessible and focus on what works for users. > > > > On the other hand, testing with users with disabilities can be > small datasets. They can be skewed toward one disability or > levels of expertise. Potentially, it might be easier to game the > system by who was being selected to participate in the study. I > have seen testing with people with disabilities that provided very > valuable accessibility information that goes well beyond WCAG > requirements. But do I want that to override other conformance > measures? I'm interested in some new ideas that could help > safeguard people from abusing the system. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/7/2018 9:45 PM, David MacDonald wrote: > > I think most WCAG evaluators would not include transient states > that last a split second on inline links unless there was some > added value. > > > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:36 PM Hall, Charles (DET-MRM) > <Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com > <mailto:Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com><mailto:Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com > <mailto:Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com>>> wrote: > > Following up on today’s conversation. > > > > RE: Testing as Pass/Fail versus Measurability > > > > All (or at least most) of the feedback, comments, and opposition > to a “measurable” approach seem to suggest or imply that > measurable means a scale – for example, a score of 1–5. > > > > Some thoughts based on a specific example: > > > > Success Criterion 1.4.1 Use of Color (Level A) > > Color is not used as the only visual means of conveying > information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or > distinguishing a visual element. > > > > Technique > > Situation A: If the color of particular words, backgrounds, or > other content is used to indicate information: > > G205: Including a text cue for colored form control labels > > Test > > For any content where color differences are used to convey > information: > > Check that the same information is available through text or > character cues. > > > > Interpretation > > “…text or character cues” here is intended to describe the > “visual means” as defined in the SC. So there is a simple pass / > fail test that “the same information” [as color] is visible. > > > > Hypothetical scenario > > Element is a link. The information and indication of action is > “this text is a link”. It is blue text within a line of black text > that is not a link. It is not underlined. Links are stateful. > There is only 1 of 5 states where there is no second explicit > visual means. In the default state, there is color alone. In the > focus, active, hover and visited states there are additional > visual affordances as well as the user agent providing a pointer > cursor where there is a pointing input device. There is even a > selected state, and a pseudo after element that includes content > of an icon that conveys the link is external. > > > > So, “same information is available through text or character > cues” is true in 4 states, but not true in 1. Does this fail? > Under WCAG 1.4.1, it does. Under Silver, there may be other > options. As a scale (as suggested at the beginning), this could > earn a 4 of 5. However, that then requires an enumerated mark such > as ‘3 or higher’ to qualify as passing. There is another option. > What if the test question was “do people understand from any > visual cues that this text is a link?” Then that question was > answered by test participants that included 60 people with a wide > spectrum of visual abilities and color deficiencies. If the result > was 49 of 60 said “yes”, and 8 of 60 said “yes, if” or “yes, when” > and 3 said “no”, there is clearly a new grey area or middle ground > beyond simply scoring on a scale. The qualitative result is that > it passed, while the quantitative result is that it scored high > enough to pass if the enumerated mark or threshold was 51%. Can > the qualitative result be accepted as a measurable “pass”? > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Charles Hall // Senior UX Architect > > > > charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com > <mailto:charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com><mailto:charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com > <mailto:charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com>?subject=Note%20From%20Signature> > > w 248.203.8723 > > m 248.225.8179 > > 360 W Maple > Ave,<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2F%3Fq%3D360%2BW%2BMaple%2BAve%2C%2BBirmingham%2BMI%2B48009%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110147851&sdata=HFtm78nsGk2bfj%2FYpklFlO2YWhEEU4JS9CSqNzk%2FsMs%3D&reserved=0> > Birmingham MI > 48009<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2F%3Fq%3D360%2BW%2BMaple%2BAve%2C%2BBirmingham%2BMI%2B48009%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110147851&sdata=HFtm78nsGk2bfj%2FYpklFlO2YWhEEU4JS9CSqNzk%2FsMs%3D&reserved=0> > > mrm-mccann.com > <http://mrm-mccann.com><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mrm-mccann.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110157863&sdata=cYXcjAGCoIcVX3GLCoUL%2FF8NfBo5%2BJJjLM1mkHzApi8%3D&reserved=0> > > > > [MRM//McCann] > > Relationship Is Our Middle Name > > > > Ad Age B-to-B Agency of the Year, 2018 > > Ad Age Agency A-List 2016, 2017 > > Ad Age Creativity Innovators 2016, 2017 > > North American Agency of the Year, Cannes 2016 > > Leader in Gartner Magic Quadrant, 2017, 2018 > > > > > > This message contains information which may be confidential and > privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized > to receive this message for the intended recipient), you may not > use, copy, disseminate or disclose to anyone the message or any > information contained in the message. If you have received the > message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and > delete the message. Thank you very much. > > -- > > > > Cheers, > > David MacDonald > > > > > > > > CanAdapt Solutions Inc. > > > > Tel: 613-806-9005 > > > > LinkedIn > > > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110157863&sdata=n0ZxmQSCRIckSgkkt3Z%2BODhw%2FO4IkDRgBxO9eFfFi7c%3D&reserved=0> > > > > twitter.com/davidmacd > <http://twitter.com/davidmacd><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110167868&sdata=hZKCiAwYzCb0IyZM%2B9HTw1PGGDi%2Bwbdcr0SeeIvQ4Ns%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > GitHub<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110177876&sdata=YGhUacLpKa1QeH2Sa5NXYs7wvA2t1%2FNe3WxCmTAMVwo%3D&reserved=0> > > > > www.Can-Adapt.com > <http://www.Can-Adapt.com><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110177876&sdata=tfPcq86ClXuVZxzz0ke%2BBeIcptobpNZL5QXKbD318FA%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > > > Adapting the web to all users > > > > Including those with disabilities > > > > If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy > policy<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110187884&sdata=b4UPWdivbnEEuDkkLOeJJcxmmRHLwfMwHoXze9poOqA%3D&reserved=0> > > > > -- > @LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe Carpe diem >
Received on Friday, 9 November 2018 20:37:39 UTC