- From: Denis Boudreau <denis.boudreau@deque.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 09:31:39 -0400
- To: "Sahasrabudhe, Shrirang P" <ssahasrabudhe@ets.org>
- Cc: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>, "public-silver@w3.org" <public-silver@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAC=s1AhGK5NW7UwCHw8KsDT+QZ4XNgyAh7C45_Q5+S2KCpycqQ@mail.gmail.com>
+1 to that. /Denis *Denis Boudreau, CPWA* | Principal Accessibility SME & Training Lead | 514-730-9168 Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good Deque.com <http://www.deque.com> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 9:12 AM Sahasrabudhe, Shrirang P < ssahasrabudhe@ets.org> wrote: > I like the idea "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 what > not, and we could measure just how many of the improvements came directly > from involving end users with disabilities in the overall process." > > We should try to go beyond the technical methods and should include some > guidance on the quality processes to be followed. Not all the findings of > user testing can always be incorporated due to various technical and > organizational factors. Therefore, the organizations can be rewarded for > documenting the findings of the user testing and the subsequent actions > they took to improve the accessibility of their product. The documentation > can help the organization to clearly assess their process maturity level. > It will also help adhering to the WCAG standards in a more systematic way. > > > > *From:* Denis Boudreau [mailto:denis.boudreau@deque.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 9, 2019 7:58 AM > *To:* Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de> > *Cc:* public-silver@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Proposal for new version of Requirement 3.7 Motivtion > > > > 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 > <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.testkreis.de&data=02%7C01%7CSSAHASRABUDHE%40ets.org%7C903b55c752544a3ba41c08d6bce2d0c5%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636904079699835430&sdata=gg%2F3WMQzvPG2yzgxHbAQ%2FCUjg6qgEJd%2BbXS%2Bgsx27XU%3D&reserved=0> > 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 > > ------------------------------ > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or > confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom > it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail > in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or > take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete > it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. > > Thank you for your compliance. > ------------------------------ >
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2019 13:32:43 UTC