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

RE: thoughts points system for silver

From: Jennifer Chadwick <jcha@siteimprove.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 16:53:49 +0000
To: "lw@tetralogical.com" <lw@tetralogical.com>, "Hall, Charles (DET-MRM)" <Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com>, Chris Loiselle <loiselles@me.com>, Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DM5PR20MB2009D063E3A2C5DF111BB535C4C80@DM5PR20MB2009.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
As a UX person, I also agree with Charles and Léonie.  I prefer the focus to be on the end user experience and outcome of testing. 


 
Jennifer Chadwick
Lead Accessibility Strategist and Product Expert, North America
 

 
110 Yonge Street, Suite 700   |   Toronto, Ontario M5C 1T4
Direct +1 647 952 0364  |  jcha@siteimprove.com



 
Click here to opt out of receiving emails.
Cliquez ici pour vous désabonner/désinscrire.


-----Original Message-----
From: Léonie Watson <lw@tetralogical.com> 
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 11:57 AM
To: Hall, Charles (DET-MRM) <Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com>; Chris Loiselle <loiselles@me.com>; Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Subject: Re: thoughts points system for silver


On 18/07/2019 16:33, Hall, Charles (DET-MRM) wrote:
> My opinion (and I say this as a UX person) is that testing itself is 
> the wrong emphasis. What the guideline should encourage is outcomes...  
> > I also have a pretty strong opinion that the level of effort of the 
> author / creator is both immeasurable and moot.


I agree on both counts.

Do you have any thoughts on how we might gauge the outcomes?


Léonie.

> 
> *Charles Hall* // Senior UX Architect
> 
> (he//him)
> 
> 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, Birmingham MI 48009
> 
> mrm-mccann.com 
> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww

> .mrm-mccann.com%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cjcha%40siteimprove.com%7C91cf4b2
> d19e14fce3dd708d70b98c6e7%7Cad30e5bc301d40dba10a0e8d40abe0f9%7C1%7C0%7
> C636990623113473298&amp;sdata=7%2Bqwitgc7zdNzhqGHrglGJLi%2FdSJNNtZ41ZR
> XOTrJrE%3D&amp;reserved=0>
> 
> MRM//McCann
> 
> Relationship Is Our Middle Name
> 
> Network of the Year, Cannes Lions 2019
> 
> Ad Age Agency A-List 2016, 2017, 2019
> 
> Ad Age Creativity Innovators 2016, 2017
> 
> Ad Age B-to-B Agency of the Year 2018
> 
> North American Agency of the Year, Cannes 2016
> 
> Leader in Gartner Magic Quadrant 2017, 2018, 2019
> 
> Most Creatively Effective Agency Network in the World, Effie 2018, 
> 2019
> 
> *From: *Chris Loiselle <loiselles@me.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 10:05 AM
> *To: *Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] thoughts points system for silver
> *Resent-From: *Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 10:04 AM
> 
> Hi Silver,
> 
> Just a thought off of today's call:
> 
> In regard to point system, would the fact that user testing was 
> completed at a given organization during the development of a product 
> give them extra points vs. not completing user testing at all?
> 
> 
> 
> For each demographic of user testing, grading all user tests equally, 
> would someone who tests with a user that has limited sight and a user 
> that is hard of hearing not receive as many points as someone that 
> tests with someone who is Blind, someone who has low vision, someone 
> who is Deaf,  someone who is hard of hearing, someone with a cognitive 
> disability (etc.)?
> 
> 
> 
> What if the organization went deep on depth of testing with the user 
> who is Blind and the user who has limited sight, but only went surface 
> level
> (breadth) with multiple users each with a different disabilities vs. 
> diving deep with two users ? Would those be weighted differently? The 
> same? I know there was discussion on ribbons, points, badges, where 
> would that come into play?
> 
> Thank you,
> Chris Loiselle
> 
> 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.

--
@TetraLogical TetraLogical.com

Received on Thursday, 18 July 2019 16:54:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:46 UTC