W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > April 2019

Re: Proposal for new version of Requirement 3.7 Motivtion

From: Denis Boudreau <denis.boudreau@deque.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 07:58:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CAC=s1Ahtqu0p484yUBOiiBpUxj2sNLia=f8OV0rX2OagCsHqYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
Cc: public-silver@w3.org
I like the proposal with Chuck’s edits.

I disagree with your position Detlev, but understand your concerns. The
temptation to game the system would undoubtedly rise from some of the
people out there that would want to be able to claim a quick path to
success (oh yeah, we tested with people, and “they” said it was
fiiiiiiine...).

I’m just not able to agree with a statement such as:

“[testing]... does not in itself change the quality of the site under test.
An awful site stays awful even after a lot of user testing.”

I believe that conducting testing with people with disabilities, when done
genuinely with the goal of user experience improvements does absolutely
change the quality of the site under test. The findings brought up by
consulting those users is expected to bring forth positive changes. An
awful site is supposed to get better as a result of the change that come
from the activity of involving those users in the process. That’s just the
nature of the activity. But we need a way to measure that clearly in Silver.

I celebrate our vision of rewarding usability testing with end users with
disabilities. It does expose our model to abuse - I certainly share
Detlev’s concerns here - but I’m sure that as we get to defining the
details of how the scoring system will pan out, we’ll find ways to reward
usability testing for aspects that actually provide value, not for things
that pay lip service to the idea of making the product or service
accessible.

As an example, we could consider pairing aspects of the usability testing
sessions with tangible results or improvements that came directly from this
testing. That way, the testing outcomes and related improvements could be
linked to specific methods for instance, or techniques or whatnot, and we
could measure just how many of the improvements came directly from
involving end users with disabilities in the overall process. The more
improvements came out direct end users contributions, the higher the points.


/Denis

—
Denis Boudreau
Principal accessibility SME & Training lead
Deque Systems, Inc.
514-730-9168



On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 04:30 Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
wrote:

> As I have said before, I think the mere fact that testing with users
> with disabilities has taken place should not be rewarded since it does
> not in itself change the quality of the site under test. An awful site
> stays awful even after a lot of user testing. If then, as a result of
> such testing, the accessibility and/or usability is improved, that
> should impact also the conformance to measurable criteria (whether
> absolute or score-based) - and I am happy to see those criteria extended
> to realms so far difficult to measure.
>
> Am 08.04.2019 um 20:42 schrieb Jeanne Spellman:
> > Here is the proposal for revision of Requirement 3.7 Motivation as
> > requested by AGWG to make it measureable.
> >
> > Motivation
> >
> > The Guidelines motivate organizations to go beyond minimal
> > accessibility requirements by providing a scoring system that rewards
> > organizations that demonstrate a greater effort to improve
> > accessibility.  For example, Methods that go beyond the minimum (such
> > as: Methods for Guidelines that are not included in WCAG 2.x A or AA,
> > task-completion evalations, or testing with users with disabilities)
> > are worth more points in the scoring system.
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Detlev Fischer
> Testkreis
> Werderstr. 34, 20144 Hamburg
>
> Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45
>
> http://www.testkreis.de
> Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites
>
>
> --
/Denis

--
Denis Boudreau
Principal SME & trainer
Web accessibility, inclusive design and UX
Deque Systems inc.
514-730-9168

Keep in touch: @dboudreau
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2019 11:58:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:23:58 UTC