- 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>
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&data=02%7C01%7Cjcha%40siteimprove.com%7C91cf4b2 > d19e14fce3dd708d70b98c6e7%7Cad30e5bc301d40dba10a0e8d40abe0f9%7C1%7C0%7 > C636990623113473298&sdata=7%2Bqwitgc7zdNzhqGHrglGJLi%2FdSJNNtZ41ZR > XOTrJrE%3D&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